world

Florida judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul

244 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

244 Comments
Login to comment

WilliB

Besides the point. You claimed that government-run system can provide the same quality, and at the same cost. You even suggested that people travel to countries with nationalized healthcare to use the good facilities.

The same quality, for the population at large, yes. For those at the top, the quality may fall somewhat as some of the resources that were allocated to their care is used instead to treat other people with more urgent needs. Overall, the quality of care remains the same, if not better, but those at the top see some of their advantages fade.

Just don´t make the outrageous claim that this is possible while maintaining the same level of costs and quality. Or even to provide more for less expensise. That idea is simply ludicrious.

It is possible if the previous system was inefficient and had a lot of leeches sucking money away from care, like the American system right now. If you get rid of these leeches and make the whole thing more efficient, with less overhead spending, then you can turn that money towards other things without affecting care level. Such is the case with the American system, just compare the levels of efficiency and overhead costs in the American system versus those in any other developed nations and the conclusion is inevitable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When the President goes around the country, promising something, you expect it to be true. It wasn't. He lied. There is nothing else to say about this. They knew, or should have known from the beginning exactly what effect this would have. Republicans told them, business leaders told them, insurance people told them. Either they knew, or they were complete idiots. While I may question their ethics and integrity, I don't question their intelligence. The fact that they knew, means they lied. There is no other way to put it.

They said the reform wouldn't force anyone to get off a plan they liked, and that was true. Now if companies change the plans they offer of their own volition, take it to them, not to Obama. Funny how right-wingers are ready to fight for their lies.

Any objective look at it that has come out in the past 6 months says exactly the same thing. It is going to cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars. Again, all that before passage budget analysis was just hot air. You don't get something for nothing, and Dems knew it.

Source? I have a source for my numbers, the CBO. Where is your source? The reform, by covering more people without changing the system a lot does cost more, but it compensated these costs with taxes and fees on certain products and cuts in spending elsewhere, which made it a deficit reducer. The Democrats didn't say it would be something for nothing, they, unlike Republicans with their pet policies, made sure it was paid for.

They dropped it, because even with all the fudging of numbers, and fuzzy logic, trying to make the thing balance out, wouldn't work with it included.

And you keep repeating the lie that the doc fix was part of the reform. How can someone be of such bad faith as you?

What you are failing to mention, is that the militia act was authorized under the aegis of defense. As in, everyone in the country was considered a member of a militia, and required to train, and in the event of a war, could then be called up to serve. The militia act was eventually done away with when the National Guard was created. Thus it wasn't against the constitution, as it fell under the highest priority of the federal government. Providing for the common defense. That is the role of the federal government. Giving everyone healthcare by forcing everyone to purchase some product authorized by the government is not.

Moving the goalposts. You said that government didn't have the right to force someone to buy a product, I proved otherwise. So the government does have the right to do it, as you agreed, just not for any reason. Then we move to the debate of whether this falls under either interstate commerce of the general welfare clause, and since Medicare and Medicaid prove that the Federal government has the right to act on those issues, then the issue is sealed. The mandate is constitutional, because:

A- The government has the right to demand citizens provide themselves with a product if the policy falls under its jurisdiction. B- The issue of health care and insurance has been for decades accepted as a jurisdiction on which the Federal government could legislate, see Medicare and Medicaid.

QED

That's why at least two federal judges ruled it constitutional.

Indeed, back in the 30s many of these things were repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional. Only after the Roosevelt court packing scandal, when Roosevelt managed to finally start being able to put his own people on the court, did he manage to get things his own way. Courts since have followed FDRs example and gone along with it, but you're right, a strict reading of the constitution would find all these programs unconstitutional. That might end up being for the best. Social Security won't last much longer in its present form anyway. It should have been changed 30 years ago.

Yes, Conservatives had packed the Supreme Court back then with Conservative judges in the pockets of big businesses. Roosevelt was right to scare them into abandoning these positions and revert to the interpretation it had back in George Washington's days. Yes, this present post-New Deal interpretation of the Constitution is actually a return to form to the interpretation that reigned during the George Washington presidency. The Madisonian narrow interpretation versus the Hamiltonian broad interpretation, in part.

The idea that the Constitution is an objective document is, unfortunately for you, incorrect. How it is to be interpreted is a partisan debate, and generally speaking, rulings by the courts on it say less about the Constitution's supposed "objective" reality and more about the success of partisan movements in packing the courts with those who agree with their respective interpretation. The pre-Roosevelt conservative consensus on the Constitution was due to conservative politicians putting conservative judges to do their bidding in the courts. The post-Roosevelt consensus was due to liberal politicians putting more liberal judges in who agreed with their interpretation. The Roberts' court shift into conservative activism speaks nothing about the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution and all about the success of Republicans to shove conservatives judges on the Supreme Court down the throat of a nation that approves massively New Deal programs and Civil Rights.

As last word on this issue, let me just say, when a Constitution prevents good and necessary things for the good of the people and the nation to be done, then it needs to either be amended (as has been the case already) or replaced. A Constitution shouldn't be a Bible, nor do the Founders should be seen as prophets, they were fallible men. If this affirmation shocks you, then you are the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kchoze:

" Quite frankly, I don't care about these people and neither should you. Their needs for treatment are well taken care of, regardless of the system they are in. "

Besides the point. You claimed that government-run system can provide the same quality, and at the same cost. You even suggested that people travel to countries with nationalized healthcare to use the good facilities.

I simply pointed out that that is not true.

Again, you are welcome to make the case that a treating healthcare as public utility is necessary for for philosophical reasons.

Just don´t make the outrageous claim that this is possible while maintaining the same level of costs and quality. Or even to provide more for less expensise. That idea is simply ludicrious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First, you are exaggerating the situation. Second, that's not caused by the law, the COMPANIES themselves decide to do it, something they could have done nonetheless.

When the President goes around the country, promising something, you expect it to be true. It wasn't. He lied. There is nothing else to say about this. They knew, or should have known from the beginning exactly what effect this would have. Republicans told them, business leaders told them, insurance people told them. Either they knew, or they were complete idiots. While I may question their ethics and integrity, I don't question their intelligence. The fact that they knew, means they lied. There is no other way to put it.

Only hyper-partisan Republican analyses say that. The reality is that the most neutral analyses say that it's deficit neutral or even reduces it. Republicans are spinning to keep lying to Americans, and you are swallowing those lies eagerly.

Any objective look at it that has come out in the past 6 months says exactly the same thing. It is going to cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars. Again, all that before passage budget analysis was just hot air. You don't get something for nothing, and Dems knew it.

It's true that Democrats wanted to correct it permanently in the reform package, but dropped it because they knew it would increase the costs and Republicans would lie to people about it, pretending these costs occurred BECAUSE of the reform, which would have been a vile lie.

They dropped it, because even with all the fudging of numbers, and fuzzy logic, trying to make the thing balance out, wouldn't work with it included.

GEORGE WASHINGTON DID FORCE EVERYONE TO OWN A GUN! The Militia Act of 1792. Funny how none of the Founders thought it contradicted the Constitution they wrote and signed.

What you are failing to mention, is that the militia act was authorized under the aegis of defense. As in, everyone in the country was considered a member of a militia, and required to train, and in the event of a war, could then be called up to serve. The militia act was eventually done away with when the National Guard was created. Thus it wasn't against the constitution, as it fell under the highest priority of the federal government. Providing for the common defense. That is the role of the federal government. Giving everyone healthcare by forcing everyone to purchase some product authorized by the government is not.

If this reform is unconstitutional, then that means Social Security, basically forcing everyone to buy into a pension fund, and Medicare, forcing everyone to pay for insurance for the elderly, would be too. Want to try making an argument, see how many Americans would be in favor of scrapping these programs?

Indeed, back in the 30s many of these things were repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional. Only after the Roosevelt court packing scandal, when Roosevelt managed to finally start being able to put his own people on the court, did he manage to get things his own way. Courts since have followed FDRs example and gone along with it, but you're right, a strict reading of the constitution would find all these programs unconstitutional. That might end up being for the best. Social Security won't last much longer in its present form anyway. It should have been changed 30 years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's not surprising at all, since the people have their rights to choose. Not sure how many of them can make their own choices between the two, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is false. Demonstrably. Companies are dropping coverage left and right. The reason why Obama has been issuing waivers like candy to children, is because of this. IT IS A LIE.

First, you are exaggerating the situation. Second, that's not caused by the law, the COMPANIES themselves decide to do it, something they could have done nonetheless.

Another lie. Demonstrably false. Now that it has been passed and they've been looking at it all, it is most definitely not deficit neutral. Some estimates put the cost of it at over a trillion dollars over a 10 year period.

Only hyper-partisan Republican analyses say that. The reality is that the most neutral analyses say that it's deficit neutral or even reduces it. Republicans are spinning to keep lying to Americans, and you are swallowing those lies eagerly.

Please note, that the doc fix was excluded simply because the CBO told congressional leaders at the time, that including it would mean it would cost an additional 300 billion dollars. Thus to keep the claim that it was supposedly deficit neutral, a lie that has long since been disproven, they exculded it from the reform package. However you have to wonder, where someone is coming from, when they think the doc fix should somehow be excluded from health care reform package.

It's true that Democrats wanted to correct it permanently in the reform package, but dropped it because they knew it would increase the costs and Republicans would lie to people about it, pretending these costs occurred BECAUSE of the reform, which would have been a vile lie. So they dropped it, but did it prevent the Republicans from telling that lie? Nope. They like their lies, you see, because reality is so harsh for them. The truth is the doc fix has NOTHING to do with the reform, it is a fix that is voted in every year because of a badly thought out law of the 90s that reduced Medicare reimbursements too much, so every year politicians from both sides vote to put a one-year fix. Whether the reform passed or not, it would still be voted in every year and would still be paid.

A reform should only be considered for what changes it brings to the system, not for costs that would have happened nonetheless, which is what the doc fix is. It would be like if during the Bush tax cuts people had said that these tax cuts would cost hundreds of billions to Americans because they didn't reduce the Social Security payroll tax.

This is beside the point however. The law is unconstitutional. The government has no power to force people to buy a product, even if that product is for their own good. And thank god for that, otherwise I suspect that certain folks in the government might just decide that its in people own best interest to force everyone to own a gun. Wouldn't that be an interesting change. I guess there are some idiots who think the government should have that power. Count me as not being one of them.

GEORGE WASHINGTON DID FORCE EVERYONE TO OWN A GUN! The Militia Act of 1792. Funny how none of the Founders thought it contradicted the Constitution they wrote and signed. If you think that government shouldn't have that right, then you have the right to that opinion, but it is nothing more than that, an opinion, it is not in Constitution. Stop presuming whatever you think is constitutional and everything you disagree with is anti-constitutional.

If this reform is unconstitutional, then that means Social Security, basically forcing everyone to buy into a pension fund, and Medicare, forcing everyone to pay for insurance for the elderly, would be too. Want to try making an argument, see how many Americans would be in favor of scrapping these programs? Many States also force people to have car insurance to drive on public roads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The claim that this plan doesn't force anyone in a current coverage they like to change it has been rated true.

It is false. Demonstrably. Companies are dropping coverage left and right. The reason why Obama has been issuing waivers like candy to children, is because of this. IT IS A LIE.

The plan is deficit neutral according to the nonpartisan CBO which made the only in-depth analysis of it.

Another lie. Demonstrably false. Now that it has been passed and they've been looking at it all, it is most definitely not deficit neutral. Some estimates put the cost of it at over a trillion dollars over a 10 year period.

Republicans have been lying when proclaiming it increases deficits once you consider the "doc fix", since the "doc fix" is unrelated to this reform.

Please note, that the doc fix was excluded simply because the CBO told congressional leaders at the time, that including it would mean it would cost an additional 300 billion dollars. Thus to keep the claim that it was supposedly deficit neutral, a lie that has long since been disproven, they exculded it from the reform package. However you have to wonder, where someone is coming from, when they think the doc fix should somehow be excluded from health care reform package.

This is beside the point however. The law is unconstitutional. The government has no power to force people to buy a product, even if that product is for their own good. And thank god for that, otherwise I suspect that certain folks in the government might just decide that its in people own best interest to force everyone to own a gun. Wouldn't that be an interesting change. I guess there are some idiots who think the government should have that power. Count me as not being one of them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But paying users who have an unlimited budget and look for the best care available? They go to to your much-maligned US, period. At least until Obamacare kicks in...

Quite frankly, I don't care about these people and neither should you. Their needs for treatment are well taken care of, regardless of the system they are in. It's quite easy for a country to set aside resources for the very, very rich and offer excellent health care to them, even relatively poor countries like Thailand can do it. That is not how the quality of a health care system is judged, it is judged by how that high quality is available to the entire population, not just the elite. That rich Latin America quasi-dictators go to the US to be treated doesn't change the fate of millions of uncovered or undercovered Americans who have no access to quality affordable health care. I don't understand how you can think the real issue regarding health care is making sure the richest of the rich choose the US for their health care instead of, you know, making sure every American has access to quality health care.

You say that the hospitals people go to in Thailand aren't accessible to normal Thais and so we shouldn't look at it as an example. That's true, but the thing you forget is that normal Americans generally do not have access to the high-quality hospitals and treatments that the elite has access to either. Neither do rich Americans go to dilapidated hospitals in inner cities when they get sick.

Your argument sounds like Americans dying in crumbling emergency rooms because they couldn't afford care outside of emergency care should just feel happy that, hey, if Steve Jobs or Bill Gates get sick, they'll get maybe the best quality health care in the world in the US. It's completely absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kchose:

" People also go to Thailand and China for health care. "

LOL! Yes, take a look at Thailand. Thailand does have a sort of national health system, it is universal and cheap, but I dare you to show me the foreigner who uses that voluntarily. Unless stuck somewhere in the boondocks, and then he will hurry to get a re-check at one of the glitzy private hospitals.

Yes, there is medical tourism to Thailand, but that is ONLY to the top-notch private hospitals, which operate totally OUTSIDE the Thai national health care and are (gasp, shudder) FOR PROFIT. A medical tourist seeking 1st class care would be out of his mind to go to a Thai national health care clinic or a British NHS clinic for that matter.

I don´t suppose it is different in China.

Thanks for making my point...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kchose:

" Oh, and BTW, yes, people do travel to Germany for health care. "

From where? If they can get ensconced in the German system because of their relatives, then sure! In fact, this abuse of the German system by Turkish family members is well-known and quite an issue in Germany. Likewise, a nationalized US system will see a lot of "non-documented" users from a neighbouring 3rd world state.

But paying users who have an unlimited budget and look for the best care available? They go to to your much-maligned US, period. At least until Obamacare kicks in...

So, don´t distort the issue, please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And yet, that ended up being in the bill. Or hadn't you heard? Not only that, what did we get from Dems? Deficit neutral, Keep your health insurance, coverage won't change, this is not a tax. Basically, all the lying that was done, can properly be laid at the feet of the Dems. Hell if you meet a dem politician or political operative, you ought to check to see if he has a forked tongue. Chances are he does.

That's the problem with the right-wing in the US, they have become completely disconnected from reality, due to right-wing politicians who keep lying and a right-wing media that protects them from having to be confronted with the truth. I'd recommend you check out politifact, a nonpartisan fact-checking organization once in a while. The claim that this plan doesn't force anyone in a current coverage they like to change it has been rated true. The plan is deficit neutral according to the nonpartisan CBO which made the only in-depth analysis of it. Republicans have been lying when proclaiming it increases deficits once you consider the "doc fix", since the "doc fix" is unrelated to this reform, the spending would have happened whether the reform passed or not. It's like saying a car costs you 300 000 $ when you add in the mortgage from your house in the cost.

In fact, by claiming that these claims are lies, you just show how disconnected from reality you are. Something that is symptomatic of the right-wing. That's why studies keep showing that the more Americans watch Fox News, the more likely they are to be wrong on the facts and believe things that are not true.

The present crop of Republican politicians is made up of two things: mad men and women like Bachman, and dishonest politicians who act like the previous group for political reasons but who know deep down that they are lying. The Democrats aren't a prize for the most part, but they're infinitely better, because they still live on Earth.

Blah, blah, blah. People, if they have the means,come to the US for health care, they don't go to Germany. They sure as hell don't go to England or other socialized states. Now why do you think that might be? Please stop trying to shove this change down Americas unwilling throat. If you want to live in a workers paradise, move to a socialized country. Let us poor schlubs deal with our capitalistic, and yet very much more prosperous country. We'll cry in our beers over our lack of affordable health care for the college kids and the indigent.

People also go to Thailand and China for health care. They even made top-of-the-art hospitals just for medical tourists, one hospital in Thailand treated 150 000 foreigners in one year, thousands of whom were Americans. That's what happens when you have private health care (which sometimes exist even in otherwise nationalized systems as a parallel system). Since health care resources aren't given to citizens who need it but given according to means, it means that people with money can just come in and hop in, taking the resources away from people who need them more.

Sure, the quality of available health care in the US is very good, though it's true also for most other developed countries, but a system is not to be judged by how well the richest, most privileged people are treated, but by how the average guy is treated or even by how the poorest, most disadvantaged one is. It doesn't matter if the top 1% have access to high-quality care, that's often true even in third world countries, what matters is how the rest of the population is treated.

Oh, and BTW, yes, people do travel to Germany for health care. Hell, even Cuba gets about 20 000 medical tourists every year. And thousands of Americans go to Mexico for health care since they can get similar quality car for much less. Maybe you don't care about them, because they're not the elite, they're the average joes who need treatments but can't afford the exorbitant prices demanded in American hospitals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama just looks weaker and weaker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and yet very much more prosperous country

LOL. What planet are you on? Do you ever go outside your own town?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, I said it's 1st rate and 3rd rate at the same time. Don't selectively quote me. Meaning, it's first rate for the King Fahds of the world, but third rate for all the Joe the Plumbers, those who must base their bodily health decisions on their financial health.

In essence, any medical care system that holds one of its pillars to be monetary profit (not merely breaking even) at the expense the health of its citizens, is corrupt, medically speaking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They debated the reform bill for a whole year. The problem is, the opponents to the bill lied again and again to people about it. "Death panel", "coverage of illegals", etc, etc...

And yet, that ended up being in the bill. Or hadn't you heard? Not only that, what did we get from Dems? Deficit neutral, Keep your health insurance, coverage won't change, this is not a tax. Basically, all the lying that was done, can properly be laid at the feet of the Dems. Hell if you meet a dem politician or political operative, you ought to check to see if he has a forked tongue. Chances are he does.

Actually, the American experience in health care is used the world over as an example that market mechanism may be much worse than government control and/or very strong regulation. The American system costs about 17% of the GDP, the German system costs about 11% of the (lower per capita) German GDP, the Dutch system costs about 9% of their GDP.

Blah, blah, blah. People, if they have the means,come to the US for health care, they don't go to Germany. They sure as hell don't go to England or other socialized states. Now why do you think that might be? Please stop trying to shove this change down Americas unwilling throat. If you want to live in a workers paradise, move to a socialized country. Let us poor schlubs deal with our capitalistic, and yet very much more prosperous country. We'll cry in our beers over our lack of affordable health care for the college kids and the indigent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sourpuss:

" if you want to sacrifice your working class for the benifit of the Saudi king, that's your business. "

I was commenting on your statement that the US system is "third rate". In fact, it is not. But a nationalized system will be, which is why you won´t see anybody using them for first rate treatment.

Now, if you want to have a argument about having maximum coverage rather than optimum quality, that is fine. But be honest about it, and don´t claim you can have both.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Dutch and German systems are better, there is no doubt about this. But Obama couldn't have proposed those systems because of difficulties with the States and due to the massive influence of big industry lobbyists in Washington. "

America is not Holland; it is not Germany. And the biggest lobbyists in wash D.C. these days put money in the pockets of Obama's party, not the opposition's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, hey, if you want to sacrifice your working class for the benifit of the Saudi king, that's your business. just like i said: snafu.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WililB

Strangely, people who want first class treatment (like most recently King Fahd from Saudi) fly to the US for medical treatment, and not a national health care paradise like the UK. I guess they really want third rate medical care. They´ll have to look somewhere else, when Obamacare raises the levels to NHS standards, right?

Cretin. Noone said the UK system was perfect, but at least EVERYONE has access to it. Read my post above and answer my questions.

Saudi King in the USA? 'cos he's got more money than sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze:

" Actually, the American experience in health care is used the world over as an example that market mechanism may be much worse than government control and/or very strong regulation. The American system costs about 17% of the GDP, "

No, it is not, and when you quote figures like your percentage, you also have to consider other factors, such American litigiousness. Check how money flows into legal insurance and unnecessary procedures just to protect against outrageous legal claims. In Germany and Holland people could never extort the system in this way, not to mention the British NHS. So you are comparing apples and oranges.

And note that rich international clients do NOT fly to Holland or Germany to be treated within the existing systems.

Inflating your existing systems with added regulations and bureaucracy like Obamacare does will cost you big time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB:

Actually, the American experience in health care is used the world over as an example that market mechanism may be much worse than government control and/or very strong regulation. The American system costs about 17% of the GDP, the German system costs about 11% of the (lower per capita) German GDP, the Dutch system costs about 9% of their GDP.

Obama's reform doesn't replace the market mechanism of the actual system, it just regulates them a bit more.

That being said, it would be possible for Americans to have a much cheaper health care system and cover all Americans. A single-payer system could get rid overnight of the amount of spending that ends up in the pockets of insurance companies' stockholders and reduce paperwork a lot. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 said that adopting a system like Canada's would save the US nearly 300 billions a year just in reduced administrative costs. That sum can only have grown since then. You have no idea how many people are eating at the trough of health care spending in the US, all these middlemen who contribute nothing to the health outcomes.

However, these billions do end up in some people's pockets, and many of these people would fight with all their strength against any attempt to end their feeding frenzy on money spent supposedly on health care. Since the American political system is made with so many checks and balances that it highly favors inertia over even worthwhile, evidently needed reforms, hope of such reforms happening are small at best.

So Obama's reform doesn't do what is needed to really extend coverage and lower costs, it only does what it can while avoiding confronting the real issues that would be too politically destructive.

So his reform made the system better, but falls well short of what the US needs to correct the huge problems they have with their health care system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze:

" The Dutch and German systems are better, there is no doubt about this. But Obama couldn't have proposed those systems because of difficulties with the States and due to the massive influence of big industry lobbyists in Washington. "

I bet you have no idea about the details of the Dutch and German systems, including their costs.

And "big industry" will also make money under Obamacare, only with different parameters. Market mechanisms will be large replaced with political backroom deals in government contacts. Experience all around the world should show you that the former is preferrable to the latter.

Again, I accept a philosophical argument for national health care. But to tell people they can have that AND save money is ludicrious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sourpuss:

" Poor Americans. Can't decide if they want a first rate or third rate medical care system. "

Strangely, people who want first class treatment (like most recently King Fahd from Saudi) fly to the US for medical treatment, and not a national health care paradise like the UK.

I guess they really want third rate medical care. They´ll have to look somewhere else, when Obamacare raises the levels to NHS standards, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor Americans. Can't decide if they want a first rate or third rate medical care system.

Oh wait! They have both!!!

Let them eat SNAFU.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir at 11:59 AM JST - 3rd February. except polls show a majority of Americans don't want Obamacare, and most want it repealed.

What poll are you talking about? Can you provide me a link that shows the above? What about benefits of requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans, regardless of their health status or history. This covers somewhere between 50 million to 100 million non-elderly Americans have a pre-existing condition , the kind of condition insurance companies can use to deny coverage. Also, 15 to 30 percent of people in good health today are likely to develop such a condition within ten years. Why do these people that are in a potential high risk do not want Obamacare?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This debate has been done to death. But smithinjapan and others have already argued my points for me.

The majority of Americans now want Obamacare repealed

SOURCE??

but the majority of JapanToday posters on the topic are not American,

SOURCE?

They drool over the thought of a central gov controlling 1/6th of the US economy, and the fact that nationalizeed health care is the mechanism neo-socialists like Obama have been waiting decades for.

Yeah. They drool over not wanting to see their loved ones die a slow death from cancer, just 'cos they didn't 'pull themslves up by their bootstraps' whilst they were holding down 3 other jobs to pay for their own medication.

Health INSURANCE Do you understand this term? Insurance companies are designed to MAKE MONEY. So tell me, where is the moraility in making money from people who are sick and dying?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Dutch and German systems are better, there is no doubt about this. But Obama couldn't have proposed those systems because of difficulties with the States and due to the massive influence of big industry lobbyists in Washington. The right-wingers would have been even angrier if he had proposed those systems as a reform. The proposal seems like a mess because the Democrats were faced with so much entrenched interests that they tried to change the present, already messed up, American system as little as possible while still achieving their goals.

BTW, Holland and Germany do have problems with illegal immigrants. There are an estimated 1 million of them in Germany alone. Not as bad as in the US, but it's still a problem they are faced with. Don't see what illegal immigrants have to do with health care reform much. OK, they may increase costs when they use health care, but at the same time they also participate in the economy, so the effect is small if not altogether negligible.

The reform is supposed to reduce the deficit by a nonpartisan organization, but it does so by raising some taxes and cutting some other spending, while some spending is increased. To really save money, you'd have to adopt policies that would hurt the industry a lot, like for example forcing basic coverage to be not-for-profit (like in Switzerland and other countries) or forcing insurance companies to be not-for-profit (since there is little to no justification as to why they deserve their profits in contributions to the economy, I mean they profit when they charge more and deny coverage, should that be rewarded?). You'd also need to impose guidelines on treatments to curb over-treatment and over-use of medical technology when the returns are small or non-existent. However, then you have people screaming about "death panels" and you have the health care industry putting billions to make sure any reform in those directions are blocked.

All of this could save billions with no negative consequence for the quality of care (quantity isn't quality, and it would free up resources for more urgent needs). But it just makes people so vulnerable to dishonest political assaults and lobbying efforts that they don't even want to try it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze:

And I forgot to add: Those systems COST something. A lot. They were not sold under the ridiculous label that they would actually save money, which is a bad joke.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze:

" No, it doesn't. Many countries have had similar, though more comprehensive, health care system in place for decades without a single-payer system coming of itself. "

No. Not in this convoluted way. E.g. Germany and Holland have systems comparable to Obamacare, but much simpler and much better thought out. Also, these countries don´t have the issue of millions of illegal aliens (the legal ones are bad enough). Obamacare is the result of political trickery, not of a rational plan. That is why it will cost Americans their shirt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@WilliB

That is part of the trickery I was talking about. The mechanism they have put into place will by necessity lead to a government takeover, even if they don´t call it that.

No, it doesn't. Many countries have had similar, though more comprehensive, health care system in place for decades without a single-payer system coming of itself.

They should have had an honest debate about a national healthcare system, and implemented that if a majority really wanted it. Doing it in that straightforward way would have been cheaper too than this current jungle of obscure regulation and obligations placed on the insurance industry, plus the huge bureaucracy to administer them.

They debated the reform bill for a whole year. The problem is, the opponents to the bill lied again and again to people about it. "Death panel", "coverage of illegals", etc, etc... When Obama invited Republicans in a televised debate, the Republicans didn't say anything but soundbytes about "government takeover" and "start over". The Republicans just wanted Obama to fail and to protect their men in the insurance industry who pay for their campaigns and grease their palms.

How can you have an honest debate when one side is just spreading disinformation and refuses to address the actual proposal?

The truth is, when polls bothered to ask people what they thought of individual parts of the reforms, they were for it in majority for most of it:

No more preexisting conditions? A majority supports. Subsidies for the poor and small businesses to pay for insurance? A majority supports. Setting up health insurance exchanges where people may compare different plans? A majority supports. Letting children stay on their parents' policies longer? A majority supports.

A public option was very popular too, but Obama dropped it, some say in a deal with the insurance industry, in exchange of which they toned down their opposition.

The one thing they opposed was the mandate, and to be fair, a lot of left-wingers oppose it too as a giveaway to the insurance industry, at least if there is no public option. However, the mandate is necessary if you want to get rid of preexisting conditions, otherwise nothing would stop people from not buying insurance until they get sick, which would basically kill the entire system because of the free rider problem.

Many people for the repeal are in fact opposed to this part of the reform only, and when they poll only "do you want to keep the law as it is or repeal it", a lot of those who want the mandate gone but support the rest of the law turn up in the "repeal" column. In fact, when pollsters give people more than one option, like "fully repeal", "repeal and replace", "keep and tweak" or "keep as is", the amount of people who want to fully repeal the law is around 20 to 25%. Roughly three quarters of Americans want the government to regulate and reform the insurance industry much more than it did before the reform.

The problem with complicated reforms is that there are so many alternatives that getting a majority to agree on one kind of reform is extremely hard. The opposition to the bill isn't formed only by right-wingers who don't want any kind of government intervention in health care, but also by left-wingers who disagree with the reform because it doesn't go far enough.

The politicians who voted for this even admitted they hadn´t read most of it!

That's usual actually. Politicians don't read bills for the most part, they have members of their staff read them for them and summarize what they do. Also, since laws are in legalese, non-lawyers politicians would have trouble understanding what they meant to do even if they did read it.

@SolidariTea

They drool over the thought of a central gov controlling 1/6th of the US economy, and the fact that nationalizeed health care is the mechanism neo-socialists like Obama have been waiting decades for.Next up they will go for energy and then the auto industry, to add to the banks.

The problem is that health care is 1/6 of the economy whereas it's more like 1/10 of the economy in every other developed country. It's a weight on the American economy and a disaster since the actual outcomes of the system are equal or worse than that of most other systems. In other words, it costs too much for too little result.

In a way, it's good for the rest of the world that the American health care system remains screwed up like that... it makes the right-wingers who want to return to a private system look like idiots when they come out and say they want a system like America's. That's why even conservatives in the UK, for example, will defend the NHS unequivocally, because they don't want to even be seen as arguing for an American system, which they know is a disaster.

But hey, keep closing your eyes and telling yourself that your system is good. Maybe a little fairy will pass by and grant you that wish. It's sad though that non-Americans seem to care more about the fate of uninsured Americans than their own fellow Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I notice the outcome of the showdown in the US Senate over this is not posted here. I suppose it is because the Senate veto of Republicans' attempt to repeal ObamaCare is not the right material. The majority of Americans now want Obamacare repealed, but the majority of JapanToday posters on the topic are not American, and they want to see America's health care nationalized. They drool over the thought of a central gov controlling 1/6th of the US economy, and the fact that nationalizeed health care is the mechanism neo-socialists like Obama have been waiting decades for.Next up they will go for energy and then the auto industry, to add to the banks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze:

" Except there was no takeover at all. There isn't even a public option available to people. "

That is part of the trickery I was talking about. The mechanism they have put into place will by necessity lead to a government takeover, even if they don´t call it that.

As I said, no population deserves such dishonesty.

They should have had an honest debate about a national healthcare system, and implemented that if a majority really wanted it. Doing it in that straightforward way would have been cheaper too than this current jungle of obscure regulation and obligations placed on the insurance industry, plus the huge bureaucracy to administer them.

The politicians who voted for this even admitted they hadn´t read most of it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@WilliB

No. Look at the numbers you are talking about. A government takeover of a huge part of the economy is not "moderate" by any definition, and the population of any country would deserve to have an honest discussion about it.

Except there was no takeover at all. There isn't even a public option available to people. The private insurances will remain privately owned and privately administrated. The main difference is that people who refuse to get covered will pay a tax to fund uninsured people's emergency treatments, that consumers will be better protected from insurance companies' predation and that those who lack the means will be subsidized to get covered. Otherwise, the entire system remains intact.

"Takeover" is only a slogan the right-wing adopted because it sounded sinister, but it has no basis in facts at all.

@Molenir

Wow, so much of your answer is just basically "No, you're wrong, I won't tell you why, because I don't know how you're wrong, but you're still wrong."

In point of fact, it doesn't. You're quite simply making things up to suit your opinion. Nowhere has the supreme court stated that the government can force people to purchase a product. Never has happened. And based on my own reading of things, the court is likely to swing 5-4 against Obamacare. With the extremely liberal judges being willing to support anything by the libs as long as it results in more government power, and the moderate Kennedy being unwilling to go along.

Medicare is an insurance that is funded by everyone and that they all have access to. Social security is basically like a pension fund, you can opt to refuse them, but you'll still pay for it. Just like this mandate, you can opt not to buy insurance, but you'll still pay in a way. If the dumb judge from Florida gets his way (which will only prove how intellectually bankrupt the Conservative judges on the Supreme Court are (though they've already proven it with Citizens United)), then Medicare and Social Security will be on the chopping block. No way around it, since they are going much further down the path of government actions than "Obamacare". But these programs have stood for decades because the Supreme Court has stood by them and the Fed's right to create such programs.

Ah, right wingers have this problem? And no doubt this all passed by the will of the people... Except polls show a majority of Americans don't want Obamacare, and most want it repealed. In fact a majority of Americans turned out and voted the Dems out. Interesting also that all those dems, not a single one of them, except in exceeding liberal areas like San Fran, had the balls to actually campaign on Obamacare. In fact they did everything they could to hide this fact. The people spoke loud and clear. So really, who is it thats trying to pervert the constitution and force this unconstitutional powergrab down the throats of Americans?

The difference is that Democrats acted on a political level, they don't pretend that the Republicans don't even have the right to repeal the law or pass their reforms. They aren't cowards hiding being an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution, they debate things on their own merits. As I said, it is the right-wingers who pervert the Constitution by using it as a vulgar partisan tool, too scared to debate their ideas on their merits, they use a call to authority, based on a stubbornly wrong interpretation of the text they claim to adore.

That being said, polls actually show that a significant amount of the opposition to Obama's health care reform comes from the left who want it to go further than it does, to a single-payer system. What is funnier is that if you list what the reform does, most aspects of it get endorsed by vast majorities of Americans. Still, polls either show either the public is split (when given only two choices) or a majority supporting the reform or in favor of some modifications of it.

Funny also that, when the Democrats got massive support in 2008, according to you, it wasn't a mandate for them to adopt reforms, but in 2010, Republicans get elected, mainly because more Democrats stayed home this time around, disappointed in milquetoast compromise-seeking Obama, but Republican voters who think Obama is a marxist Kenyan plant turned out in huge numbers. And that supposedly constitutes a mandate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze:

" This is why the United States is dysfunctional. Even this reform, a moderate one in the scope of reforms "

No. Look at the numbers you are talking about. A government takeover of a huge part of the economy is not "moderate" by any definition, and the population of any country would deserve to have an honest discussion about it.

The way one party pulled this off, with deception and legal trickery, was by no means honest, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tort reform is debatable, and Democrats were open to adding it in, but Republicans refused to negotiate.

Wow, way to try to rewrite history. Republicans begged to put it in there, and were denied. The Dems are too in bed with the trial lawyers for tort reform to have a chance.

The only way allowing trading across State lines would help is if they were regulated by federal regulations that went beyond what most States demanded through regulations... wait, that is in "Obamacare", what do you think the Health Insurance Exchange is?

Not what anyone was asking for, not then and not now. Dems didn't want it, because it would void Obamacare. If people can buy their insurance from someone else because its cheaper, and yet offers good coverage, then that screws up the entire system Dems were trying to foment.

The reform Obama has spearheaded are a more moderate version of the systems in place in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other such countries. These don't have catastrophic health care, far from it, their population lives longer, healthier lives than Americans do.

But thats not what Obamacare is. Not even close.

George Washington disagrees, since he forced every able male to purchase guns and equipments needed for militia duty. This judge's ruling actually goes against decades of jurisprudence.

In point of fact, it doesn't. You're quite simply making things up to suit your opinion. Nowhere has the supreme court stated that the government can force people to purchase a product. Never has happened. And based on my own reading of things, the court is likely to swing 5-4 against Obamacare. With the extremely liberal judges being willing to support anything by the libs as long as it results in more government power, and the moderate Kennedy being unwilling to go along.

Not only that, but the fact is that this reform doesn't force people to buy insurance directly, it simply imposes a tax on people who do not buy insurance. There is no criminal consequence to not buying an insurance, just this tax.

Thats spin after the fact. It wasn't a tax until they realized that they were definitely going to have to defend it, and mandating a purchase like this is not, and never has been constitutional. Thus they decided to call it a tax instead.

The problem with American politics is that the right-wingers can't abide by the will of the people. They keep claiming to defend Democracy, but whenever a government is elected that they don't like, they use the Constitution as a cop-out, perverting its real purpose, to try to prevent actions from being taken that they don't approve of.

Ah, right wingers have this problem? And no doubt this all passed by the will of the people... Except polls show a majority of Americans don't want Obamacare, and most want it repealed. In fact a majority of Americans turned out and voted the Dems out. Interesting also that all those dems, not a single one of them, except in exceeding liberal areas like San Fran, had the balls to actually campaign on Obamacare. In fact they did everything they could to hide this fact. The people spoke loud and clear. So really, who is it thats trying to pervert the constitution and force this unconstitutional powergrab down the throats of Americans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They fail to make care quality and cost transparent, which would let health care finally work as a market, and help identify the best health care vendors. Also, they ignore medical malpractice system, which encourages defensive practice. The problems and the solutions are mostly structural, and are well understood within the industry. If reform does not pursue some of the structural changes, health care will continue to drag down the larger economy at enormous cost. If the Congress continues to exchanges money for influence, then the American policy will favor special interests rather than the public interest. Then, we'll be unable to meaningfully address national health care problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obamacare is not a reform, its throwing the entire healthcare industry under the bus. Reform would have revised the legal system to make it more difficult to sue over the slightest thing. Reform would have made it so there was greater competition for customers by allowing for purchase of health care accross state lines.

Tort reform is debatable, and Democrats were open to adding it in, but Republicans refused to negotiate. However, States that tried it did not see increased coverage or lower health care costs (though they did attract doctors from other States, a positive effect that wouldn't work if it was spread to the whole USA). That being said, trading across State lines is something the insurance industry want to be able to screw consumers even worse. It wouldn't help, it would just allow them to avoid States that have legislations to protect consumers and thus offer lower quality plans at higher prices. That is exactly what happened when the credit card were allowed to be offered across State lines, they simply stopped offering them from States that protected consumers and just offered them from States that protected them.

The only way allowing trading across State lines would help is if they were regulated by federal regulations that went beyond what most States demanded through regulations... wait, that is in "Obamacare", what do you think the Health Insurance Exchange is?

Your ideas for reform would only result in little positive effects or horrible effects.

The reform Obama has spearheaded are a more moderate version of the systems in place in Switzerland, the Netherlands and other such countries. These don't have catastrophic health care, far from it, their population lives longer, healthier lives than Americans do.

Lets also remember, that Romney himself admits its a disaster.

He actually boasted a lot about it until he saw the frenzied reaction the right-wingers had to Obamacare, and since he's not an idiot, he changed position to distance himself from the plan he put in action in order to still have a chance in the Republican primary.

BTW, do you know what is the percentage of coverage in Massachusetts? 96-97%. In Texas (tort reform)? 76%.

You obviously didn't read his opinion. He stated unequivocally that there is no basis or provision in the constitution that allows government to force people to purchase a product. He is in fact correct. He is also correct to state that if this is allowed, then there is nothing, no bar nor limit on government powers. That the government could then require people to do anything.

George Washington disagrees, since he forced every able male to purchase guns and equipments needed for militia duty. This judge's ruling actually goes against decades of jurisprudence. If it stood (which is unlikely, even the very conservative Roberts Court is unlikely to back him up), it would basically mean that programs like Medicare and Social Security, that the vast majority of Americans support, are unconstitutional. However, many Supreme Courts have accepted these programs' justification under the General Welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause.

Not only that, but the fact is that this reform doesn't force people to buy insurance directly, it simply imposes a tax on people who do not buy insurance. There is no criminal consequence to not buying an insurance, just this tax.

The problem with American politics is that the right-wingers can't abide by the will of the people. They keep claiming to defend Democracy, but whenever a government is elected that they don't like, they use the Constitution as a cop-out, perverting its real purpose, to try to prevent actions from being taken that they don't approve of. They don't try to follow what the Constitution says, they instead try to force their beliefs on the Constitution by twisting around its words (what else from a country of lawyers?). A Constitution is supposed to establish the rules of the game (AKA Democracy) and to protect certain rights, but the "conservatives" in the US use it as a vulgar political and partisan tool.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is why the United States is dysfunctional. Even this reform, a moderate one in the scope of reforms they could have done and made necessary by the utter failure of the health care system to provide coverage for all and to control costs, runs into this much opposition.

Obamacare is not a reform, its throwing the entire healthcare industry under the bus. Reform would have revised the legal system to make it more difficult to sue over the slightest thing. Reform would have made it so there was greater competition for customers by allowing for purchase of health care accross state lines.

Let's remember that this reform is basically what the Republicans themselves proposed in the 90s to counter the Clintons' proposal. It's also basically the same as the reform Mitt Romney, one of the leading names for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.

Lets also remember, that Romney himself admits its a disaster.

That's the political side of things, but to see activist judges like that going on nothing to declare laws they don't like "unconstitutional" is just showing how absurd it all is. For the record, the judge noted in his judgment that he didn't think that the USA, a country he thought was built on opposition to taxation, should have such laws.

You obviously didn't read his opinion. He stated unequivocally that there is no basis or provision in the constitution that allows government to force people to purchase a product. He is in fact correct. He is also correct to state that if this is allowed, then there is nothing, no bar nor limit on government powers. That the government could then require people to do anything.

No one of those who signed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution objected to it as being unconstitutional, so why does this judge presume that he knows better what the Constitution is supposed to mean than those who wrote it and signed it?

Its rather obvious that he has a much stronger grasp of the constitution and what its framers intended, then you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not all Americans are idiots, but this fool for a Judge down in Florida, should be ashamed of herself,oops, himself! When all those happy people just further south in Havana have FREE Medical care! WTF??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not really. It's quite different.

How?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is why the United States is dysfunctional. Even this reform, a moderate one in the scope of reforms they could have done and made necessary by the utter failure of the health care system to provide coverage for all and to control costs, runs into this much opposition. Let's remember that this reform is basically what the Republicans themselves proposed in the 90s to counter the Clintons' proposal. It's also basically the same as the reform Mitt Romney, one of the leading names for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.

That's the political side of things, but to see activist judges like that going on nothing to declare laws they don't like "unconstitutional" is just showing how absurd it all is. For the record, the judge noted in his judgment that he didn't think that the USA, a country he thought was built on opposition to taxation, should have such laws.

First of all, that is a POLITICAL, not a judicial, opinion. Second, the judge is an idiot who doesn't know his own history. The war of Independence was fought not on taxation, but on "taxation without representation". In other words, Britain was deciding the taxes Americans paid, and Americans believed that, as British citizens, they had the right to vote for any government that could tax them. The famous Boston Tea Party even occurred after the British Parliament actually lowered the effective taxation of tea for the colonies. A large part of those who were involved in it were smugglers angry that legal tea would be sold at a lower price than their smuggled Dutch tea. Not only that, but the first time a federal army was raised following the Independence was by George Washington himself, going to smash down the Whiskey Rebellion so as to protect the Federal government's right to tax the citizens of the United States. Not only that, but that same George Washington also voted in a law while president MANDATING that every citizen own a gun, offering public subsidies to buy guns for those who couldn't afford them (Uniform Militia Act). Later on, Congress appropriated money to help the poorest to equip themselves as they were mandated to do.

No one of those who signed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution objected to it as being unconstitutional, so why does this judge presume that he knows better what the Constitution is supposed to mean than those who wrote it and signed it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Medievaltimes:

" The Republicans have said it will raise costs long term, if not bankrupt the country. The Dems have said it will pay for itself. "

I think a strong philosphical argument can be made for national healthcare, but the democrat argument here is simply ridiculous. A whole new gigantic bureaucracy and a multitude of additional benefits can never "pay for itself". That is absurd. The case for this "paying for itself" is made with fake mathematics, as has been pointed out many times.

If the pro national healthcare presents their argument for burdening the population with more taxes in an honest way, I can respect that. But the way they pulled this through by mislabelling it as a reform, claiming that it is a free market system, and declaring you can have something for nothing, that is an insult to everybody`s intelligence.

My 2 yen

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as the republicans focus solely on undoing what President Obama has done, such as HCR, instead of focusing on jobs, the lesser there chance to remain in power after the next election.

How can they be so out of touch?

Damn, hatred makes people pigeon-holed.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beneficiary is the same...as in, the public.

Not really. It's quite different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, but the beneficiary is completely different. Obamacare is forcing you to buy for your consumption.

Beneficiary is the same...as in, the public. Obamacare is forcing you to buy for the same reason. (I already explained in my 1st post...read it again)

It is interesting to note, the Republicans have said it will raise costs long term, if not bankrupt the country. The Dems have said it will pay for itself. Its interesting that the two sides are vastly far apart on how this will play out. Honestly, I dont believe either...the truth will most likely fall somewhere inbetween.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The health care will be decided by the Supreme Court.

The health insurance needs reform not an Obama health care. My understanding is that medicare will still be taken out of people paycheck so why are people paying double for the so called health insurance through their paycheck/employer along with medicare?

The Obama health care will be a burden to the State and the Federal government. Therefore, the tax payers will be footing the bill. Each year the cost of health insurance goes up. The quality of health care providers will vary.

Whatever happened to the county hospitals that provided health care? How did we get from no county hospitals to Obama health care?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I laugh everytime when American's say they have the best health care in the world.

why? we have the best health care in the world, best treatments, some of the best medical schools, hospitals. As for healthcare COVERAGE, however, there is alot of room for improvement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I laugh everytime when American's say they have the best health care in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its similar in that it is mandated to buy a product....insurance.

Yes, but the beneficiary is completely different. Obamacare is forcing you to buy for your consumption. Liability insurance is protecting others.

I'm not sure which is worse or better, but the situations are very different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Liability insurance is to make sure you can pay damages you may cause to other motorists. This example is not similar to the health care bill.

Its similar in that it is mandated to buy a product....insurance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Officials in the states that sued lauded Vinson’s decision. Almost all of them have Republican governors, attorneys general or both.

that's some partisanship by the AP. By their admission above, some states have Democrat governors. And Democrat Senators and congresspeople. Senator Reid's own state joined the suit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unemployed person 0 benefits making 0 a year

They get treated now without paying anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

koronos-

So Obama has suggested a solution.

wrong. Obama has not submitted any plan. The healthcare bill was written by outside consultants, and Congress passed it without reading it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BIG DIFFERENCE -

Wow !!!! That's Coldblooded. I would never do that even my worst enemy. I would never deny a person for medical services.

These judges need to be removed !!!!!! Of course it's always Florida with the crazy views and distortion.

2 Federal Judges making over $150,000 a year. Driving a nice car Living in a nice neighborhood making "foolish decisions" about healthcare is unconstititional.

Unemployed person 0 benefits making 0 a year What the heck is this person going to do if they are sick ?

A certain group or organization is thinking Poor people don't deserve healthcare**
0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am sick and tired of this debate.

If the healthcare in US is fine the way it is, then move along already.

If it is broken, then try to fix it. If it is broken, then it means that the current system does not work. It has been there for years so there is no logic in following the same method. A new system has to be developed. And it has to be developed soon.

So Obama has suggested a solution. If there are those who do not agree with that, then suggest an alternative. I understand that quite a few people do not agree with Obama. So what are they recommending?

This is healthcare. It should be more important than which party people are supporting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What makes you think the cbo is wrong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The CBO has constantly told Republicans that it will save the deficit over some billions of dollars

What makes you think the CBO is right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First, if I am not mistaken, I thought some states require drivers to have car insurance. The idea being it would cost the state (and people) less money if everyone purchased it.

Liability insurance is to make sure you can pay damages you may cause to other motorists. This example is not similar to the health care bill.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. Car insurance is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another sad commentary on America today is the incessant irrational political labeling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... so basically the State judge is ruling what the Federal government can or cannot classify as a tax deduction?

That's just idiotic. If each State could rule on Federal taxes then you'd end up with chaos as States entered into reciprocal agreements on tarrifs and taxes that effectively stripped the Federal government of all revenue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Liberals must be dismayed at this ruling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo...The CBO has constantly told Republicans that it will save the deficit over some billions of dollars in the next ten years....but the Republicans continue to deny this even though the CBO is neutral.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo...yeah, the constitution was certainly respected by the previous Admin...hahahaha!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Judge Vinson's ruling puts this poor piece of legislation onto the fast track to the Supreme Court. Sorry, liberals, but the constitutionalists outnumber the 'touchy, feely' justices on the bench, so ObamaCare will ultimately be defeated. And better sooner than later. If the SC ruling can come in a year, instead of two or three, it will save us taxpayers and seriously reduce our future debt.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

South Dakota is in the process of requiring people to own a firearm. Not because they think its a great idea, but because they want to point out the stupidity of the health care bill.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The legal issue here is whether the democrat-controlled Congress and Obama over-stepped the "Commerce Clause" and can force citizen's into buying healthcare insurance -- or any other product for that matter -- under penalty of fines and imprisonment.

This will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, and I'm willing to bet it will uphold Judge Vinson's ruling.

Global liberals can shake their li'l fists and shriek all they want, but our Constitution is the only protection we have against a tyrannical government.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now the Obama has to hope the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn Judge Vinson's ruling. Heh, good luck with that.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty much every ruling that doesn't go their way is a 'conspiracy' to Republicans/conservatives. They just can't get enough of them. :-)

Agree with Taka - it's the start of yet another painful decline for the GOP. But this time they'll have the Tea Party holding them in a death grip.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A couple of points.

First, if I am not mistaken, I thought some states require drivers to have car insurance. The idea being it would cost the state (and people) less money if everyone purchased it. But I never heard of anyone complaining about that. Why would this be different? I understand not everyone drives, but the vast majority of people do.

Second, both sides from the start said this issue will ultimately be decided in the supreme court. The interesting thing that will happen with that ruling is going to be one side acting like a sore loser. If the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, people will claim some kind of conspiracy...if it is ruled constitutional, people will claim an activist ruling. No matter what happens, the "defeated" side will complain because they didnt get their way. There is no respect for the process of government that is. Not good for Americas future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SolidariTea, so we just dump all those who can't pay for healthcare - for whatever reason - in the street? If anything, the conservative attitude to healthcare is very clear and easy to understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cool. The ruling judge looks like a Tea Party member. He couched his verdict in some VERY interesting terms:

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

I am thinking back to last year, and I am having a good laugh. All of my lib co-workers and friends and relatives assured me that ObamaCare would not be found unconstitutional.No way. Because, you see, Obama taught Con Law (a lie) and he could run circles around circuit judges or state supreme court judges. Smartest guy on earth. Can't touch him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3:

" Just a wild guess, but my bet is that every American poster on this thread who is against this healthcare bill is sitting pretty "

I wouldn´t make wild guesses about "every American poster" here, but I notice the increasing numbers of Obamacare wavers for friends of the Obama adminstration (like unions) in the US. If Obamacare is so great, why is that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just a wild guess, but my bet is that every American poster on this thread who is against this healthcare bill is sitting pretty with some sort of coverage themselves and who doesn't really know what it's like to be ill and not covered.

Like most wild guesses it was way off the mark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just a wild guess, but my bet is that every American poster on this thread who is against this healthcare bill is sitting pretty with some sort of coverage themselves and who doesn't really know what it's like to be ill and not covered.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

another american judge looking to make himself a name.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In short those companies make a big buck of healthy people and use that to cover others." That is correct, basically insurance is one big pool of money. Again, no one is even peeping about the insurance companies, they are no longer the bad guy....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have no control over bankers and insurers." oh, but we do, we're just too lazy and too quick to believe anything particular politicians..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - I agree on their track record but if they get it wrong they can be voted out. We have no control over bankers and insurers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many members of the House of Representatives who voted for the unconstitutional ObamaCare were thrown out in the November election?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Better to have some level of control from a state managed system

the problem is the "state" are the same people that got us into Iraq, failed the mortgage market, is spending us into bankruptcy, and many more... they don't have a good track record of competence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dontpanic.

Well said. Even with private medical schemes, any insurance, etc your premiums will cover parts of the costs for others who need more coverage than you do.

In short those companies make a big buck of healthy people and use that to cover others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think you probably do. Who do you think covers all those uninsured accidents? You do from your inflated premium.

shhh... you're messing up my argument. that's the beauty of capitalism, people usually do get taken care of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree good discussion.

The USA needs to think more and find a solution that works for them, discussion with outsiders can offer a different perspective, etc.

Can't say that any country has the optimum solution but many seem to be getting there by creating balances & checks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really. who needs the raucousness of the U.S. Congress when you've got Japan Today? We're probably way better looking, too. :-)

LOL!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - "I pay for mine, but I don't have to pay for YOUR car insurance too"

I think you probably do. Who do you think covers all those uninsured accidents? You do from your inflated premium.

Theres no free ride. If cover is to be provided someone pays. Better to have some level of control from a state managed system than a free for all that lines the pockets of insurers and leaves some without adequate care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a pretty interesting debate that is very clearly highlighting a huge ideological divide. Really. who needs the raucousness of the U.S. Congress when you've got Japan Today? We're probably way better looking, too. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are problems that do need to be taken care of, but I just don't think that this method is the best one.

Yes, especially when congress didn't even read the legislation.

It's tough to feel comfortable with the incompetents in charge to run the thing, but it's hard to disagree with many of the points smithinjapan and zenny made.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the whole goal of the Obamacare was to model it on systems like in UK, why then has the British PM said that an overhaul is needed for their healthcare system. If Canada is so great, why did the governor of Newfoundland go to America to have his surgery. Even the likes of Madonna, who likes to bash her own country (USA) came back to America from Britian to have her baby.

There are problems that do need to be taken care of, but I just don't think that this method is the best one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this has been a repeating topic for many months, and I do say, smithinjapan and zenny are starting to convince me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zenny - sorry, I'm mostly not paying attention to your posts, focusing mainly on a discussion with a few others here.

You do have some good points though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, if we cut down on trial lawyer costs and frivolous lawsuits, health care costs would dramatically decrease. Unfortunately the lawyers lobby doesn't want that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did you read what I wrote or just rehashing the same argument over and over?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zenny-

Just like you need Insurance for your car which you can get wherever you like it.

I pay for mine, but I don't have to pay for YOUR car insurance too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake - What is "broken"? If you mean pre-existing conditions, which seems to be what government healthcare advocates always bring up, that's an easy fix. Even insurance companies themselves are doing away with that.

Who is being denied healthcare? Practically no one.

Government healthcare is socialized medicine - it was not an insult or scare tactic, just a fact.

zenny-

Just like you need Insurance for your car which you can get wherever you like it. I pay for mine, but I don't have to pay for YOUR car insurance too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica.

Because many people feel like you most countries that offer Universal Healthcare don't make it compulsory, what is compulsory is being covered. Just like you need Insurance for your car which you can get wherever you like it.

If you don't like the Universal Healthcare you can still be covered by a private one, the Universal one though will always be there "IF" private refuses to cover you or you can no longer afford it. Of go for the Universal as a basic and buy top-up coverages.

Said that just like with private healthcare you will still need to pay the monthly premiums for you and everybody else that is covered on it.

There is no free ride as such.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - "However socialized medicine is an extreme measure for most things that aren't even broken."

So called "socialized medicine" is not an "extreme measure" at all. Just google how many developed countries have universal healthcare.

Sorry, it's "socialist." Are you screaming in terror yet? :-)

And you're claiming the U.S. healthcare system isn't even broken?

The mind can only boggle....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruitsbasketfan - I am referring to your argument that the US lags behind all these countries. What info are you basing this on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Try google!

it is not hard manfromamerica....There are plenty of personal stories out there about people who have been dumped by their insurance companies.

Do not assume that just because it does not happen to you means that it does not ever happen in America.

Because it does and we would not be having the debate about healthcare reform if did not have a problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimpsest - "You are projecting your own elitism on American conservatives who, for some strange reason, you are obsessed with."

LOL!! Rubbish. I actually want more for your countrymen and women than you do.

And I'm not even American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan- I am serious, you have some very good points. I don't think either position (yours or mine) is without merits or faults, I just feel more strongly about individual responsibility. I also don't think the US government is competent enough (Dems or GOP) to handle something well that is as important as healthcare. It's better for people to take care of themselves first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bottom line still remains: the US is really falling apart, and the commercial exploits in independent business and Republican personal interests in maintaining the current system only guarantee it's collapse in the long run (or short run, maybe). In the meantime, thousands die for lack of coverage or being denied care by plans they've been paying into for years. You guys don't realize you are screwing up your own future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits - I disagree with your comparison to the other countries. I have never had a problem with access to healthcare in the US, whether or not I had insurance.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting this info?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Britain, Spain, France, Canada, Japan, Korea have better access to healthcare than the US.

And all of these countries have some sort of universal healthcare or subsidize health costs to help cover people.

I keep telling you this but you refuse to believe it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3:

"You are projecting your own elitism on American conservatives who, for some strange reason, you are obsessed with."

Told you it was only a matter of time! Fact of the matter is, these ultra-rightists with no idea of their own nation or laws have little or no ability to accept criticism, and resort to the usual, "I was born here so I know more" crap I mentioned earlier. No surprise this would come from one of the aforementioned, then.

manfromamerica: "Sushi, that's quite an unfair assumption. My post was clear - you shouldn't have to pay for me, and I shouldn't have to pay for you."

No, you've made it quite clear yourself that Sushi's assumption is not at all out of line, but qualified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"she was rejected for the operation, or the coverage? This story is far from usual."

I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits- you still have not proved why everyone else should be forced to pay for people who are not covered.

If you like, regulate against the pre-existing conditions issue. However socialized medicine is an extreme measure for most things that aren't even broken.

One of the benefits of universal healthcare is that it encourages people to get checks and fixes early,

I would think having good health would encourage people to get checked and fix things early. You think you can force people to be responsible?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's funny, but if you watch these guys argue, ESPECIALLY Tea Party activists, when they are so elitist and like the British while those who are 'under' them suffer.

Obama is offering to help people out and all the Republicans in question want is to seal the deal in terms of vested interests and how to make more money while said people suffer. As one poster said above, all we can do is watch them circle the ring (and laugh at the complaints when they get there).

palimpsest: "I lived for years w/o health care. Had to pay out of pocket at times. Life ain't fair."

That's all we needed to hear, bro, on top of a 'who cares about others'. At least you're a step above the others in being honest about your greed and unwillingness to sacrifice for your country. Don't cry when it's Chinese, though!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She was rejected for the coverage and the family did not have the money to pay for the operation!

And like I said, this was my friend's family....he was very little when it happened and he can only give me the general idea.

You cannot continue to live in your "illusion" where America's healthcare system is the best (when it is not).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits- she was rejected for the operation, or the coverage? This story is far from usual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is in the news and the 50 million people who are without insurance!

My friend's aunt was rejected because she had a pre-existing condition.

And she died.

I swear, you have got to be naive to believe that the US insurance companies do not do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - "Fact: everyone in US has access to health care and health insurance. If they want it, they can pay for it."

LOL!!!

And if they can't pay? You're cool that they just get sicker and sicker and become an even bigger and more costly strain on your country's heathcare system?

Really??

One of the benefits of universal healthcare is that it encourages people to get checks and fixes early, before health problems explode into money-sucking, bankrupting, family-wrecking nightmares.

But it seems you have a major problem with this idea.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No. The basic difference is that conservative healthcare-deniers think they are somehow better and more deserving of basic healthcare than some of their countryfolk."

You are projecting your own elitism on American conservatives who, for some strange reason, you are obsessed with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. The basic difference is that conservative healthcare-deniers think they are somehow better and more deserving of basic healthcare than some of their countryfolk.

Sushi, that's quite an unfair assumption. My post was clear - you shouldn't have to pay for me, and I shouldn't have to pay for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not to mention: Social Darwinism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet, the insurance companies do not do what they are being pay for by rejecting those who are sick and going through expensive surgeries.

Do you know anyone who has been rejected for surgeries that were essential?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet, the insurance companies do not do what they are being pay for by rejecting those who are sick and going through expensive surgeries.

That is why we need reform.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hospitals are meant to help people but if they find out they are illegal, then they can deport them

No, they can't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: It should be a right to citizens of the country since we are living beings who will go through diseases and accidents that happen beyond our control!

fruits - it's not about inhumanity.

you believe in the benefits of a nanny state where everything is taken care for you.

we believe it is each person's individual responsibility to take care of themselves, and not forcing you to take care of me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So you admit it's now not affordable. So what do those who cannot afford it do, since you are against universal health care?"

I lived for years w/o health care. Had to pay out of pocket at times. Life ain't fair. I know plenty of young Americans who take the same gamble - choose to buy cars, computers, clothes whatever rather than buy insurance.

I suppose some of those who don't have it could always go to Canada, non?

Medical tourism is a good idea, if you ask me. Obama and the Democrats have no problems with people freely entering our country, I fully support my fellow Americans wishes to leave freely to seek health care.

I consider many auto insurance plans as basically unaffordable. Doesn't mean I "oppose" buying auto insurance.

I shudder at what a lawyer would cost me these days back in the US. But that doesn't mean I think we need free and universal legal assistance - the last thing the Party of Lawyers would ever let their stooge Obama consent to promoting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny - "but if universal healthcare is available less people will be sick, live better, contribute better in their jobs and the whole economy."

Bang on. I was hoping someone would bring this up.

Healthy people are also more able to work AND pay taxes.

How about that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hospitals are meant to help people but if they find out they are illegal, then they can deport them and then you will not have to deal with them coming a second time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - "Seriously, it's a joke. ....They refuse to acknowledge single mothers who can't find work, or others who have been laid off and what not. They just don't care! The only way they'll ever care is when it happens to them, and then they'll still try and desperately grasp for a way to blame anyone but the cause. It's quite disgusting."

Agreed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - money is also property.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Illegal immigrants will not be covered by the health care law!

illegal immigrants get sick, go to the hospital, default on their payments, and the rest of us have to pay more because of it.

.they will be refused if they fail to have papers to legally work and live in the US.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. If police can;t ask for their papers when arresting them, hospitals sure can't ask for their papers before giving treatment. Ask a hospital - illegals are not denied, and cannot be denied, hospital care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They will most likely ID you and want to know who is being treated to make sure you are legal or not if you were admitted to a hospital.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "At what point do you think is the line between private property and public property?"

You make the reference to property, so let's get into that:

I have a house on private land. You cannot enter unless I choose you can. It is not public. That makes sense. Let's extend this to hospitals. You're saying a hospital can bar people based on preference and that's not a crime of sorts? They can look at a single mother who is pregnant and having an emergency and say, "I don't know her (pointing a gun, since in the US), get her out of here!" if she doesn't have the proper health care since she can't afford it?

Nice system. And nice comparison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: It should be a right to citizens of the country since we are living beings who will go through diseases and accidents that happen beyond our control!

You refuse to understand this, again!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And even if the illegals have the money to buy the health insurance....they will be refused if they fail to have papers to legally work and live in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimpsest: "Like I said, health care used to be affordable."

So you admit it's now not affordable. So what do those who cannot afford it do, since you are against universal health care? :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Illegal immigrants will not be covered by the health care law!

Seriously guys....you do not even have the basic understanding of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruitsbasketfan - healthcare isn't a right. And it IS available to EVERY PERSON (even non-citizens, illegals, etc), even if they have NO insurance and no money.

At what point do you think is the line between private property and public property?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"fruitsbasketfan, how much additional in tax are you willing to pay for other people's health costs?"

And how many millions of illegal aliens do you feel we should provide for?

Also, should that one cut both ways? Should Mexicans be forced to pay for the health care of Guatamalans, over half of whom live in 2$/day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "fruitsbasketfan, how much additional in tax are you willing to pay for other people's health costs?"

Not other people's, brother. Yours, and your kids, and theirs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimpsest: "You just called it "ObamaCare." LOL."

Nope, I didn't.

"You defeat your own arguments against Obama's legislation."

I think the moral compass in your head has gone a bit daffy. I have never been against the universal health care Obama is trying to legislate, so why would you say I'm against it?

As you guys get more and more desperate to persuade yourselves why you are against your fellow Americans getting help when they need it, you are becoming more and more bizarre in your logic. Sorry, but saying, "You defeat your own arguments against Obama's legislation" isn't all that great a retort to, "You defeat your own arguments against Obama's legislation".

Ouch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Car" i mean, not "care"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like I said, health care used to be affordable.

So what happened?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I told you, Whatever the government will require!

I am not against taxation if it means public service!

We already pay for taxes for schools, roads, and water even if though I have no care and some people do not have kids.

People of other countries understand this and you guys refuse to understand why healthcare should be a "right" to every citizen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruitsbasketfan, how much additional in tax are you willing to pay for other people's health costs?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have read history and we lag behind Canada and Europe when they had universal healthcare for decades!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"You guys clearly will NEVER get it and do not understand how the private sector on healthcare has failed us for the past decades."

How many decades? You are 19. Like I said, health care used to be affordable. It is very telling that so few proponents of universal health care ever mention talk about examining what happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which the latter has brought the US behind Canada, Europe, and Japan with health efficiency and satisfaction.

You clearly do not see how corrupt this system is by leaving the insurance companies in charge without government regulations who drop coverage and discriminate against people who are sick!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimsest - "In the most recent US election held NOT A SINGLE Democrat ran on the merits of the health care reform Obama and his New Left cohorts rammed down our throats."

LOL! That 'rammed down our throats' was a conservative Talking Point during the healthcare debate.

Every anti-healthcare bill conservative and faux news commentator was using it. Too funny. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits- the private sector hasn't failed us. The insurance companies are companies, not charities. I was happy with my US coverage, and it justified my purchase.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruitsbasket we "get it", we just disagree. Please see my post above:

You believe it is the governments role to redistribute wealth.

We believe it is each person's individual responsibility (and opportunity) to take care of themselves and earn for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You guys clearly will NEVER get it and do not understand how the private sector on healthcare has failed us for the past decades.

You refuse to understand the need for healthcare to be given to every citizen or at least subsidized care.

The judge does not have the final say, it will be decided by the Supreme Court and two other courts do find it constitutional (while two do not).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"or are you just talking medical R&D in the private sector?"

Obviously I am. Governments cannot innovate like the private sector can.I think most high school kids know that. But this is lost on non-Americans who sponge off our system - though quite a few Canadians are aware of it, the ones who avail themselves of our border state hospitals.

"This should come as no surprise, given that you charge an arm and a leg for health care that should be universal."

What of all that amazing innovation that came before TORT abuse and Democrat lawyers , ambulance-chasers? Health care was not always so steep in America. But the authoritarian statist progressive crowd steers clear of this odd little fact.

"You defeat your own arguments against Obama's legislation."

You just called it "ObamaCare." LOL.

You defeat your own arguments against Obama's legislation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact: everyone in US has access to health care and health insurance. If they want it, they can pay for it.

Judge Vinson has ruled as such.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11: Japan's system, actual practice aside, is a big step up from that of the US, but not the best example to be using as a standard, I'm afraid. The Japanese system is absolutely awful, and that's going to prove itself in the coming years as the system collapses. Of course, WHY it collapses is more complicated.

How this contrasts with the US system of denying people the right to healthcare, though, I agree with you -- it should be mandatory that all pay, and all be able to receive (ideally).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - the basic difference seems to be that you believe the nebulous and oft-corrupted "good of the people" is more important that private property and individual responsibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimpsest: "Proven by whom? Or are we talking about Leftist "proof" - your feelings and the creepy misogynist thrill you get calling conservative women stupid..."

Let me just give you this quote, to prove how wrong, and how hypocritical you are: ""If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"

OUCH! So.... if I claim a woman who is against women's rights is stupid, do tell... how am I the creepy misogynest?

But back to health care... Molenir quoted this woman, from Fox TV no less, as proof of his stance against Obama's health care. Hopefully an American Jew doesn't want healtcare... because, you DO know her stance against the Jews, don't you? :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimpsest: "Proven by whom? Or are we talking about Leftist "proof" - your feelings and the creepy misogynist thrill you get calling conservative women stupid..."

Proven by her own words and actions. I already provided a bevy of quotations today, but they were deleted. Trust me: she is against women, the jews (as non-Christians), claims the Democrats of today's government helped the Nazis until the Nazis invaded Russia... you name it. This woman is an absolute walking sack of stupidity, and skin-peelingly so. I think she even tops GWB in stupid quotations.

You asked, you get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "DDT: Dramatic Dream Team". That explains a lot about you guys. Seriously, though, if you're talking about the repeal of a ban on toxic chemicals on a thread about a Florida judge striking down Obama health care overhaul while suggesting others are 'cracking up' or going off topic... well....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "The left wingers still have no rational answer as to why they need to take other people's money."

Ummm... no. People world-wide have provided plenty of reasons, literally, and plenty of proof, through systems of their own, as to why universal health care is a benefit to the public, despite the taxes to fund it. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide any reason why you object to all Americans being given access to health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "Ohhhh, leftists are so "smart"... much smarter than everyone else. Another myth."

Nowhere did I say "Rightists are smart and Leftists are stupid"; I merely said Ann Colter is one of the stupidest women in the world, and that's a proven fact. It's funny you should jump to the conclusion it meant that Rightists are as such, though. :)

Moderator: Ann Coulter is not relevant to this discussion. All readers, please focus your comments on what is in the story and not at or about each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan - stay on topic. Your "we care about life" is hilarious but completely a "red herring" as you say.

Why should other people pay for you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"who's denying you? If you want it, buy it yourself! :-D"

"Bang on!" as the poor foreign socialists, forced to live in capitalist Japan, like to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "So I guess you are against abortion then. And for repeal of the ban of DDT?"

Red herring. And don't you mean DADT? How would the ban on DADT be against human life? That's the weirdest argument on this thread I've heard yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Something that healthcare-denying conservatives continue to fail at.

LOL!! who's denying you? If you want it, buy it yourself! :-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What many don't get.

Yes, to a certain degree you subsidize others, but if universal healthcare is available less people will be sick, live better, contribute better in their jobs and the whole economy.

In short a healthier population can ear more, produce more and most likely is less sick. And you got the guarantee if all things go south(and they can do quick) you are covered and the people you helped will now subsidize YOU.

Those are some of the reason my most countries have such a system.

OTOH, healthcare is there to keep you healthy, not there to pay for porcelain fillings and other cosmetic, extra stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimpsest: "America leads the world in medical innovation."

HA! So, this innovation includes health care for all? or are you just talking medical R&D in the private sector? This should come as no surprise, given that you charge an arm and a leg for health care that should be universal. You defeat your own arguments against Obama's legislation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Now, as an American who is obviously enjoying the benefits of health insurance, what's your argument for leaving uninsured Americans to fend for themselves?"

You know the response to this is just going to be more of the same: old radical-right posters who have been banned under different names saying, "global leftist-this, and socialist that" and ultimately stating as thought hey actually believe it that you can't possibly know better than them because they were born on the soil they spit upon.

Seriously, it's a joke. When you show them the fact that there are so many people who don't get covered they try to counter it with 'tax-paying Americans', as though those who aren't covered aren't paying taxes, and hit towards illegal immigrants in many cases. They refuse to acknowledge single mothers who can't find work, or others who have been laid off and what not. They just don't care! The only way they'll ever care is when it happens to them, and then they'll still try and desperately grasp for a way to blame anyone but the cause. It's quite disgusting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Something that healthcare-denying conservatives continue to fail at."

Glad to read then that the majority of Americans are now "healthcare-denying," (whatever that means...) and conservative. That number sure has jumped since 2008. In the most recent US election held NOT A SINGLE Democrat ran on the merits of the health care reform Obama and his New Left cohorts rammed down our throats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do not confuse the US with having the best technology and possible emergency care (that is until you have to face the bill) equals Canada and Europe with having greater overall basic healthcare.

No one is left behind or uninsured in those countries whereas in the US.....nearly 50 million are left behind and insurance companies continue to drop coverage to pre-existing conditions and expensive surgeries.

That is inexusable for a country with such wealth to not give basic health to every American citizen whereas other countries do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FruitsBasketFan - "Because healthcare is a need simply because we are living beings who are prone to disease, pain, and accidents that are beyond our control! Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, and even Mexico believe that! It is simply being humane!"

Something that healthcare-denying conservatives continue to fail at.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Yes we do - we actually give a damn about human life."

America leads the world in medical innovation.

So please don't tell us we don't care.

There are a number of solutions to the problem.

If ObamaCare is the one why do they keep granting waivers to unions and doing so as quietly as possible???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir - "Was watching Fox earlier...."

Heh, anything else written after that doesn't deserve to be read.

Faux News is a joke - I know you know that but it has many of the talking points you need to back up your position that uninsured Americans somehow 'deserve' to be left to fend for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - "The "liberals" here still have no argument as to WHY working people need to pay for health insurance for people who don't have it."

Yes we do - we actually give a damn about human life.

Now, as an American who is obviously enjoying the benefits of health insurance, what's your argument for leaving uninsured Americans to fend for themselves?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What the government requires me too.

Buying insurance with the government subsidizes for me so I can afford it.

If I take a part of this bill (if it survives in the Supreme Court) I know I am doing my part to help ensure that with me backing the bill that I am helping reduce premiums so more Americans can afford insurance.

That is why the mandate is necessary.

Without a large pool of people....health insurance premiums will not go down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits - when you get a fulltime job, will you pay for my children's doctor visits? How much are you willing to give me?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica....just because I believe in providing subsidize health care costs to citizens does not make me a communist.

By your logic, then Japan, Europe, and Canada must be Communists.....

rolls eyes

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because healthcare is a need simply because we are living beings who are prone to disease, pain, and accidents that are beyond our control!

Healthcare is a need. Making other people pay for yours, however, is NOT.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm, seems to be mandatory to work you need pay into ss. Is that legally different? I wonder...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We gave you the reason: Because healthcare is a need simply because we are living beings who are prone to disease, pain, and accidents that are beyond our control!

Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, and even Mexico believe that!

It is simply being humane!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: " If the government can mandate people purchase something, then theres no reason why the government couldn't simply mandate that everyone must purchase a Bible and a Gun."

There's no reason the government couldn't mandate you give up your rights to object to internet screening, new scans at airports, and the Patriot Act, among a myriad of other things. But yeah, let's see legislation brought up that would make you eat broccoli twice a week! haha. BTW, what's Ann Colter most famous for? Hard to say, but here are a few more quotations:

(in her rant against Liberals with Bill O'Reilly, when she said Liberals stood up for the Nazis): "Oh yes they did. ... It was only when Hitler invaded their precious Soviet Union that at the last minute they came in and suddenly started saying oh no, now you have to fight Hitler." –Ann Coulter.

""I don't really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester. ... I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." --on the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, FOX News interview, June 22, 2009"

'"We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." --arguing that it would be better if we were all Christian'

'"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"'

Yeah.... I know, Molenir... quite the cringe you made just now. Still want to quote Ann Colter? There are hundreds more quotations like these, if you want to prove her 'credibility' or validate her opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fox News is notorious for lies and having a right wing agenda.

Several commentaries have comment about it and even was notorious by spreading the lie during the 2008 election that President Obama was Muslim and from Kenya.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And using Fox News?

ahh, the fashionable "I'm a liberal" cliche... as a young man or woman of 19, what is your experience with Fox News?

The "liberals" here still have no argument as to WHY working people need to pay for health insurance for people who don't have it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Judge Vinson just became the lunatic lefts' new villain.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In Spain, UK, and France they pay with taxes and muliply other ways (especially the latter).

@Molenir: Except that healthcare is a basic need simply because we are human and are prone to diseases or accidents that are beyond our control. You do not need a Bible and a gun to "live" a healthy life (they are pluses, rather).

And using Fox News?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Was watching Fox earlier. Ann Colter was on, talking about the health care issue. Had a great line I thought I'd share...

She said, that if the requirement to purchase healthcare is found constitutional, that it works both ways. If the government can mandate people purchase something, then theres no reason why the government couldn't simply mandate that everyone must purchase a Bible and a Gun. Which to be quite frank, would be better for the country then this monstrosity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica.

Where do you see free healthcare anywhere in the world? People usually pay via monthly contributions deducted from their Paycheck(even in japan for goverment medical).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits- Insurance companies aren't charities. This is "insurance". You buy their product "coverage", and if you get sick then you have your coverage. If you are healthy and don't feel the need, then don't and save up your money. If you want free healthcare, that's a different left-wing agenda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course that depends whether the mandate will survive the Supreme Court....because without it....the premiums for pre-existing patients will not go down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan still at least subsidizes the health care costs and the law makes sure of that!

In America, we have no law until Obama's health care bill came where it makes sure that it will guarantee that the insurance companies will at least subsidized a huge portion of your health costs.

Moderator: Readers, Japan is not relevant to this discussion and we also request some of you to please stop sniping at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did the judge in this case also cite the hundreds of waivers the Obama administration has, in a glaring example of crony capitalism, granted unions and certain businesses?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fruits - on top of costs, limited treatments, limited medicines, then you have the problem with the shoddy quality of Japanese healthcare...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@palimp: I am an American and was born here.

I told you that I tend to type fast and make mistakes in the internet that before I realize the grammar errors....it is already posted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you, Judge Vinson. It was obvious from the start that ObamaCare does not meet the Commerce Clause. It would be the same as requiring everyone to buy auto insurance when there are quite a few Americans who don't drive or own a vehicle.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica.

Yes, in japan you pay 30%(used to be 20%) private or goverment medical cover.

Ar you also aware that any medical expenses over 20.000Yen(from those 30%) can be claimed back from the goverment?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know.

My parents may help me with paying for one when I am done with college and enter a 4 year university, but it will be harder for them since they just got another baby.

That is why I am trying to save money to help eased that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No problem.

In general, university students are required to sign up for health insurance and the fees are part of what is paid. That's why I asked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fruits - do you know what healthcare is like in Japan? you pay 30% of all bills. In US, you usually have a $10 copay. In Japan not everything is covered, the govt decides which treatments are, and because of standard Japanese beaurocratic malaise treatments and drugs that are standard in the rest of the world are years late or nonexistent in Japan.

Get your insurance, then when you get sick you are covered. BTW - it's called INSURANCE, not FREE HEALTHCARE.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you have a case to make about health insurance, changing the facts will make it harder to believe.

The working poor are the ones that have a hard time with insurance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do intent to enter one.

I tend to use both college and university indiscriminately....guess I should be careful.

Sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Getting healthcare is very expensive to have here!

Government should help subsidize it like they do in Japan, Canada, and Europe!

My friends tell me how they have better health benefits there and their costs are subsidized so they can afford it.

Here: It is common for people to be in debt because of medical bills and even have to put of a mortgage payment just to pay for an operation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hey fruits - I read them, that's how I can correct you.

So now you are part of the fashionable university liberal crowd, and can show off how "lame" your parents and old people are, have you decided to study in Peace Studies, or is it a major in History of Consciousness? Why should people who work have to pay for your healthcare? Do you want to pay nothing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am studying in a community college to get rid of my first two years (then going into a 4 year university) and it is not a requirement to get insurance because they say nothing about it when I enrolled.

I cannot afford it, anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps you could address mine then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But then, I am not a Democrat...

you forgot "fortunately"

What I don't understand is how "50 million people" can be added to the system but Soros' frontman Obama can get on TV and mouth lies about how this will actually result in a reduction in health care costs.

we should ask Fruits about liberal math. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could say the same to you since I am not a Republican who believes in the lies they spout (death panels and government takeover).

With the mandate and a large pool, the insurance companies would have no choice but to reduce their premiums to meet the demands of a large market.

But if you do not wish to understand than that....then fine.

I prefer a public option, but the Senate refused it and we took the Swiss model instead (where they require their citizens to have insurance and the companies cannot deny nor cheat them off with skimpy protections and receive subsidies from the government to afford insurance).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought it was a requirement of Iowa universities that students have health insurance. In fact, it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica.....Did you know that under the new health bill if you make less than 133% of the federal povertly line (which is less than $14,200 for singles a year and $88,000 for families a year) you would have been accepted into medicaid (a federal-state funding program that pays for health needs for the poor) and how people who make more than that will get subsidies to afford insurance?

The fault goes to the insurance companies uncheck powers by continuing to up premiums in a rate that it makes it harder for people who are still not finished with school to find decent coverage. It is especially harder for those who are sick and cannot get insurance because the health insurance companies continue to not cover them.

The bill would have at least prevent that from happening.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Unless you are one of those struggling 50 million Americans who are without health insurance because they cannot pay the monthly premiums and/or have pre-existing conditions....then you will never understand why health reform is needed."

What I don't understand is how "50 million people" can be added to the system but Soros' frontman Obama can get on TV and mouth lies about how this will actually result in a reduction in health care costs.

But then, I am not a Democrat...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like how manfromamerica does not read my posts explaining how there is a lack of a edit button and how I do struggle with studying and having a job.

Unless you are one of those struggling 50 million Americans who are without health insurance because they cannot pay the monthly premiums and/or have pre-existing conditions....then you will never understand why health reform is needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

e I currently make less than 133% of the povery line.

You really should study math.

Why should working americans pay for you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Citizens should have the right to basic healthcare."

Why stop at health care? Should you also get free legal assistance? Should you get free food and housing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never have so many Americans wanted so much to bail on their fellow citizens. The downward spiral of America continues and it's getting uglier by the month.

ooooo, people don't CARE any more... [yawn]

the left wing chooses to ignore their failures by creating "problems" with the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I live in Iowa and I am kicked off my familie's insurance plan because I am older than 19 years old and currently in university!

I cannot afford healthcare and where I live should not be an obstacle to having the right to basic healthcare like Canada and Japan !

I would have benefited from the healthcare plan because the government would have subsidized it for me or I could have enrolled in medicaid (at least until I get my degree) since I currently make less than 133% of the povery line.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

palimsest, oh yeah I do. Are you American? It doesn't seem like it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Never have so many Americans wanted so much to bail on their fellow citizens. The downward spiral of America continues and it's getting uglier by the month."

It's clear from what you post you don't know anything about America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Question for Romeo and other Americans opposed to this bill: if you didn't have a job, had little savings and needed urgent and costly surgury this week, would you be happy if your fellow Americans did as you are doing and tried as hard as possible to deny people like you access to potentially life-saving treatment via health insurance? Because if you wouldn't be down with that, guess who's the two-faced hypocrite?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never have so many Americans wanted so much to bail on their fellow citizens. The downward spiral of America continues and it's getting uglier by the month.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I live in the US and it is deeply flawed compared to Japan and Canada (two countries I have been)."

Americans know the kind of health care you receive depends on the state and city you live in. I doubt you are what you say you are. What city are you in?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I live in the US and it is deeply flawed compared to Japan and Canada (two countries I have been).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Romeo, it appears, would rather have people who can't afford healthcare just dumped in the streets like they've been doing foryears at Skid Row."

It appears you don't have the first clue about the US health system or what "skid row" means. Are you a troll?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romeo, it appears, would rather have people who can't afford healthcare just dumped in the streets like they've been doing foryears at Skid Row. Nice, Romeo, nice. Better to save a few bucks than to save a life, yeah?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If ObamaCare is such a good thing for us why is the White House granting waivers by the hundreds to unions, to politically favored companies and to people in government? I guess they think that because Chris Mathews doesn't report it we don't know about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's a method to the mandate. You have to have a large pool of people to subsidize the sick and unhealthy. That's the whole purpose of it. For people who scream about out of control deficits, rising health costs (Medicare and Medicaid)are the single biggest rising outlays. And by the way, doesn't everyone have pay into Social Security and Medicare with their paychecks? Why doesn't the judge find that unconstitutional?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This was expected to go to the scotus from the beginning. The sooner the better... No real news here :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@skipsong: I fail to see what you are saying?

Sushisake is probably not a doctor so how can he/she tend to them?

It is horrible how the world richest country in the world does not provide at least basic healthcare to its citizens.

Even Japan does better with efficiency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Finally, judges following our laws of the land.

The objections of 26 states bringing the suit against the government, saying it is unconstitutional because ObamaCare requires ALL people to purchase healthcare; and constitutionally, according to our laws, the government cannot force any of us to purchase anything.

Heh, another wooden stake into the heart of this monster.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I prefer a public option....but unfortunately, the US refuses to have it right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Discriminate against pre-existing patients (I mean).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bill is still better than what our current system is going through.

It at least checks the power of the insurance companies and denies them the right to drop coverage and discriminate against it.

Of course, some doctors are afraid because they may get cuts on the paycheck (even though they get paid 2 or 3 times MORE than doctors from other countries).

The Senate refuses the public option so Obama had no choice put to offer this kind of reform.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really don't see why Americans who oppose universal healthcare can't just be straight up and honest with themselves and just admit, 'I don't have a heart and don't give a damn about my fellow Americans." How many heart attack, gun shot, stab wound, AIDS victims have you tended to? How many times in the cold of night carrying an old drunk of a veteran to the Chicago VA have you? How many times have you bothered to look at the other options that are and always have been available?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't mind paying my taxes, even if they increase, because I pay into a system that helps people. That's cool" then fine, that's your choice. I would prefer to have a choice and as Alphaape puts it, I sure wouldn't like to pay a fine should I fine myself in a bind and can't pay especially since I take care of myself.

This one got me..." later in life watching Sicko" Just how many relatives or recent arrivals from Cuba have you met and discussed this with? Once I have your answer, we'll extend on this conversation, but Sicko was more sick than reality...

Having affordable health care is a wonderful idea and it should all be affordable, like several states/cities have which is where it should have stayed. It has been more due to government why our health care has been so expensive. Additionally, you can't tell me its fair for a person in a state like Iowa to pay for an inflated rate of health care for a person in Cali..

How about this You all for it, READ THE BILL, 2. Talk to those of us who are in the biz, 3. talk to a person on welfare (like we were in 89 to 92 and got everything for free). 4. Ask, what is wrong with the bill (I have countless times put up here what's wrong on the business side it and what it is going to do to "free and cheap clinics" (ironic to say the least but they'll be gone)

Also, how come we don't hear about those evil insurance companies anymore? We just handed them business on a silver plater. Cheaper meds? What's up with that NOW?

You can groan all you want, but there are a lot of good reasons why the bill needs to be overturned. Go back to the drawing board and put out a REAL HEATH CARE Bill

I wish I had the education half of you guys have, if I could write well, I'd put out a good one but I would limit it to the state level at the max

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama and his inner circle of crony capitalists have personally ok'd thousands of waivers to unions and to high-profile companies. The judge has done Americans a favor. ObamaCare is deeply flawed. It was a power grab. It amounts to a system of ensuring political payoffs to loyal groups. Or it favors companies willing to embrace corporatism. Need to start over or scrap it altogether.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really don't see why Americans who oppose universal healthcare can't just be straight up and honest with themselves and just admit, 'I don't have a heart and don't give a damn about my fellow Americans.' I'm amazed that there's NON-Americans out there like smithinjapan who actually are more concerned about the health of the U.S. population than many Americans are. Healthcare Deniers: Haven't you got the heart to protect and want the best (even if it is a minimum) for YOUR OWN people??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing has made me appreciate my Canadian Health Care more than receiving a lot of it as a child to no loss to my family, and later in life watching Sicko, which made me consider moving to France as well! I don't mind paying my taxes, even if they increase, because I pay into a system that helps people. That's cool.

That Americans would rather make a buck off their dying grandmother continues to amaze and appall

As America continues to circle the drain, I suppose all we can really do is watch

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not against healthcare reform, and I agree that things need to change. But I am just not in favor of this plan. Why is it in the Obamacare bill that it calls for the hiring of 14,000 IRS agents to assist in the oversight of the tax collection.

GJDailleult, has good points. I am capitalist, and I get the point of being able to make money. But there are somethings, where one would hope the main drive to provide the service would not be a profit motive. I am not asking for socalized medicne, but we need to get better at reforming the insurance industry, cutting out the excessive costs, and make it so that people can afford healthcare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I take it Alphaape is talking about Medicaid there, and I can see why he would be ticked off, but hey, that is the system you guys came up with.

It is always weird seeing the world's self-proclaimed leader of free-market capitalism fail to understand basic concepts of how capitalism works. I suspect actually a lot of people are just pretending not to understand as that is where the money is. But a simple rule - if something can not be provided at a profit it won't be. Universal health care can not be provided at a profit, and private insurance companies can only make a profit by segmenting the market. In other words they dump off the oldies and the really poor on the government (which then has to decide what to do), and sell insurance to the profitable ones, with a lot of people getting stuck in the middle.

So either an American has no insurance because he can't afford it but is not poor enough to get it, or he has it. But even the guy who has it is still getting ripped off, because he is paying twice. He is paying for the oldies and the poor through his taxes and the deficit, and he is also paying his insurance premiums. Private insurance profits are basically just the money that would have been used to subsidize insurance for the unprofitable by the healthy, and so reduce taxes. A pickpocket couldn't steal your money any easier.

As for the constitutionality of forcing people to buy a product from a private company, my guess is the judge is probably right. The government can only force people to pay money to the government, rightly or wrongly (car insurance being a special case, but you are not forced to buy a car if you don't like it). But I am guessing also that the fix is already in, the insurance companies want it too much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the richest countries on Earth continues to fail to provide basic healthcare while conservatives are lining up in droves to deny all Americans access to basic healthcare. As I've said many times before: conservatives are essentially anti-American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Alphaape

Should there be reform, yes. But don't believe all the hype that people are not being treated. They are.

Well that is and it isn't true. My sister was on public services as well for a bit - she could get emergency care, but routine checkups, things for her son? She had to pay that out of pocket, and such things are very expensive for a single mother on a limited income.

Surely healthcare costs would decrease should all have access to affordable preventative care. What bugs me about the healthcare debate is so many want to shoot down the ObamaCare (and it is crap, I know) without acknowledging there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Had it been anything else that the government passed bills for, like the Patriot Act or something like that, and individual states tried the bills as unconstitutional (particularly lead by shallow-minded politicians and businesses who would suffer), the Republicans would be in an uproar.

Anyway, it will be rightfully overturned on appeal. The Republicans can insist that walking backwards means going forward all they want; they won't stop the US from ultimately making progress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the high percentage of Americans without access to quality healthcare will continue to be second class citizens. A victory for head-in-the-sand retrograde thinking.

@Smorkian: Long story short, I have relatives who have been on the public dole, not because they can't find work, but because they chose to do so (that is a discussion for another time). I work and pay taxes, and they don't, I pay for my health care, and they don't. Their children have had braces, other medical procedures and full coverage since they were born, all paid for by the taxpayer.

The problem with US health care is that the insurance companies get too much control and the trial lawyers get to file huge lawsuits for malpractice. Those things along with cases like I mentioned and the burden of taking care of people who are in the country illegally are what drives up the cost.

Should there be reform, yes. But don't believe all the hype that people are not being treated. They are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a very good thing for all hard-working Americans who had good healthcare that has been compromised since ObamaCare came into being. A win for tax-paying Americans.

And the high percentage of Americans without access to quality healthcare will continue to be second class citizens. A victory for head-in-the-sand retrograde thinking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a very good thing for all hard-working Americans who had good healthcare that has been compromised since ObamaCare came into being. A win for tax-paying Americans.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama originally advocated for a public option but that was turned down by the Senate.

A public option would still mandate that everyone has insurance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama originally advocated for a public option but that was turned down by the Senate.

The only other reform would be a mandate that requires insurance (like Switzerland).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The two judges who voted called it "unconstitutional" are Republican appointed judges (so it is not surprise why they have this conservative view since no Republican voted for the healthcare reform).

@FruitsBasketFan: Yes the judges may have been Rep. but they used the president's own words as a candidate in their ruling. The ruling stated:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

I guess he was just holding an elected offical to his word.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting that Republicans are celebrating these judicial decisions when in the past they lamented - and loudly - judicial activism and sought to get activist judges off the bench. Not something Goldwater would be proud of.

Republicans can't think of anything worse than the average American having affordable health care - that's Socialism! One step away from Godlessness!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

Where are the stats to prove this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The two judges who voted called it "unconstitutional" are Republican appointed judges (so it is not surprise why they have this conservative view since no Republican voted for the healthcare reform).

And yup, I bet Japan and the rest of the world are feeling sorry for Americans not having the right to healthcare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well over half the states now consider ObamaCare unconstitutional.

Well over half the world shakes its head at America's inability to provide basic healthcare for all its citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well over half the states now consider ObamaCare unconstitutional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites