+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+--- Thread: Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. (/showthread.php?tid=37173)
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Anonymous Moose - 2011-02-01
Eosian Wrote:When that happens it'd be a tangible reality one could actually address. Until such a time you're frothing over a work in progress as if it were a set in stone divine mandate that Will Never Change.Obamacare will be implemented slowly enough so that with the short attention span of the people that we wont even notice the change. And honestly, we know Obamacare will create several issues in society. Why let the fire grow, spread and cause destruction when we know of the issues Obamacare will bring, and can stop the disaster now.
Which again goes back to my exact point. Don't obsess over the flaws. Fix them. You insist it's damaged beyond repair and should be completely done away and start from zero but if you do that all you'll get is another one of the same, made by different people with equally conflicting agendas and idiotic compromises on unrelated topics just to achieve consensus.
You don't burn down the house and start over every time you need a new addition or want some adjustments made. You rip down what you need to and put in what you want. By the time you're done the house may have no relation to the original, but it still had a structure in place to work from while you go rather than having to re-lay the entire foundation.
The problem with this house is that it is corrupt from the core. Even it's foundation is illegal. We need to completely start over because Obamacare addresses no issues in our healthcare system.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Holypie - 2011-02-01
So you're saying that because something is the slightest bit not capitalist that it's corrupt from the core? Please explain, because a new tax is implemented you think it's going to destroy your country?
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Eos - 2011-02-01
Anonymous Moose Wrote:We need to completely start over because Obamacare addresses no issues in our healthcare system.
How?
How will you "start over" when the first attempt led to this?
How will the next attempt be better?
You have to fix problems in manageable chunks, otherwise you invest an astronomical amount of time and money reinventing an equally flawed system that an already suspicious populace will be standing there waiting to tear back down. All you'd create is a vicious cycle of throwing it all out and starting over and never actually getting any where.
At least as long as the basic framework is in place it has the potential to do what it was allegedly designed to do - Help people.
With nothing in place that is exactly what you get - Nothing.
Which would you rather have, a leaking ship you can keep plugging the holes in and repairing until you get to safe harbor or nothing but your own arms and legs to paddle you across the stormy sea?
If it's going to be implemented slowly that gives time to address issues on each step as they become reality and work out improvements.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Anonymous Moose - 2011-02-01
Eosian Wrote:Which would you rather have, a leaking ship you can keep plugging the holes in and repairing until you get to safe harbor or nothing but your own arms and legs to paddle you across the stormy sea?
The Country is a sinking ship right now. If you look into another issue of Obamacare -cost- Obamacare is like shooting a cannon into the hull of the ship. Having framework is nice, but the framework needs to be the basis for the final result. Not any old framework will be a one size fits all solution.
And we dont need Obamacare at all. We need to reform the system to allow for competition between insurers (decreases prices and hopefully make healthcare affordable), and we need to amend the law to allow leniency towards people in debt for reasons beyond their control. Then we just need the states and communities to pass their own laws that will cater to the community's or states own personal needs. For example, Michigan believes all children need a government option for healthcare, MiChild, but another state with a different economy and different set of laws might find that MiChild program to be uneeded.
We dont need to pass an unconstitutional mandate. We dont need to unconstitutionally prevent hospitals from expandind. We dont need to scare away doctors with federally set wages. We dont need a bill with unconstitutional mandates that arent related to healthcare (ex. house visitations). And we certainly dont need to have the government forcing Americans to pay into a failing system.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - MasPan - 2011-02-01
[color="#cc8899"]Something irking me here - can we please stop confusing healthcare with health insurance? Two completely different things.
Dictionary.com Wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/healthcare
health·care /ˈhɛlθˌkɛər/ Show Spelled
[helth-kair] Show IPA
–noun Also, health care .
1. the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.
2. any of the procedures or methods employed in this field.
–adjective Also, health-care .
3. of, pertaining to, or involved in healthcare: healthcare workers; a healthcare center.
Dictionary.com Wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/health+insurance
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: health insurance
Function: noun
: insurance against loss through illness or injury of the insured; especially : insurance providing compensation for medical expenses and often income for disability
That aside, my ONLY concern with the "reform" is that it mandates that most American citizens either purchase a health insurance plan or pay a fine, alongside the fact that the government is creating its own health insurance plans.
Health insurance, like insurance of any kind, is a business/service. It's essentially gambling that the money you pay on a regular basis will add up to be less than the amount that the insurance provider will be required to pay in the event of some major medical problem or a series of minor treatments.
An example to help understand why I think the bill is problematic:
Let's say the government decides that everyone (or most people) is required to have a maid service of some kind clean their home on a regular basis. While some people may be more than capable of keeping their home clean without the maid service, the government tells them that they are still required to pay for the service or a fine to the government. At the same time, the government establishes its own maid service to compete against services started by entrepreneurs.
[/COLOR]
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Phoenix - 2011-02-01
I've heard a lot about a "Public Option" that was not included in the bill due to outrage. Seems to me that everyone is angry about being forced to buy insurance, so why is a government option that's probably cheaper and would force insurance companies to compete with them and lower premiums such a bad thing?
Anyway, I'm Canadian and the health care system we have is not perfect, but it works. I'm in Quebec, and the two-tier system of paying a private clinic isn't as prevalent (or allowed? Not sure need to check my facts on that) as in Ontario. Which does stress the doctors/nurses/hospital infrastructure more I'll admit.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Eos - 2011-02-01
Anonymous Moose Wrote:moosey-stuff
Everything you just said was blaming someone else and making it someone else's problem.
If all those other people who should've done this and should've done that had had the initiative/been able to/wanted to step up and do it in the first place we wouldn't have reached this point.
Honestly I think you missed the biggest should've; We should've capped malpractice so the insurance cost to be a doctor didn't nearly dwarf your student loans and encourage doubling the price of operating.
Some should haves, like that one, can still be done, and go a long way towards making it workable and better for everyone.
A blanket "it should be someone else's responsibility" isn't an argument though, it's an excuse.
Programs like CHIP show that unless driven at the Federal level to some degree these things don't happen because there are too many players, too many variables and too much inequity. If anything the Obama Reforms should've been modeled more closely after that program but that too led to panic about government run healthcare despite it's precedents.
Healthcare is a basic human right according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it's one that U.S. Citizens, who allege to be foremost in developed nations, do not have a guarantee of. That's absurd, and under your structure for how things should be they still would not if they lived in a state that didn't feel like it. That sort of inequity between the states is part of why it needs federal oversight; To ensure that everyone has, can have, and does have the same equal opportunities rather than it remaining a class-based "benefit" rather than a human right.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Anonymous Moose - 2011-02-01
Pointing out the flaws is the first step towards finding a slolution.
So the UN's declarations are more important than our sovereignty? More important than our constitution? More important than our freedoms and choices?
Its not the UN's place to decide world policy. It is the people and their government's place to decide what they want their public policy to be.
Also, I just love how you ignore the real problems here and are dancing round the issue.
First, getting healthcare was never a problem in this country. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat patients, and if they do (which only happens in the case of a very few nutcase doctors) they risk sanctions form the government. When it comes to Obamacare, it infringes upon the people's ability to obtain healthcare by coercing doctors to quit and preventing hospitals from expanding. This will result in delayed treatment and in some cases people wont receive treatment. This is worse than the current system where people do get treated and healthcare services are avalible.
Second, the one problem is the laws restricting the sales of insurance and lack of choice. Right now, competition is limited with insurance companies being restricted by state lines, increasing costs. Also, a major problem is that insurance is promoted to be through your employer. It should not. each individual should be able to choose their own insurance without the government subsidies and tax breaks (part of why employers offer health insurance) influencing and limiting the people's choice. What does Obamacare do about this? It sets up a market place where only government approved insurances are allowed to compete. This limits choice (part of the original problem), and wont do anything to solve the real problem. And we still have insurance through the employer, and this issue is magnified by the Obama administration giving certain companies exemptions for offering Obamacare (yes, some businesses dont need to, while others must offer Obamacare).
Third, a major issue in this country is the sanctions on debtors. We didnt have bull like this credit score in the past that could dictate several factors of your life (got to love how silly numbers are controlling lives these days). Being in debt also didnt mean your life would fall apart like it does today. This is a much larger issue and a different topic in general, but easing the pain debt causes to families and individuals would allow people to receive care without being crippled, and this would solve the major issue people had with the current system (what did peopl complain about during the 2008 race? They complained mostly about the resulting debt). What does Obamacare do? Definitely doesnt do a thing to help families. It just makes it easier for banks to collect on debt by allowing the government to drain your bank account without a judge or jury.
Fouth, its unconstitutional and the federal government does not have a good track record with social services. Just read the 10th Amendment. All powers not granted or forbidden to the federal government by the constituion are the powers of the people and the state. This means that Obamacare is illegal, and if the States or People wanted to take healthcare into their own hands, then that is their right. Point being, if you want universal healthcare, do it through the states or individual communities that would have universal healthcare to directly fit the community's needs.
And now I;m running out of time again so I'll make the rest short.
Tort reform is another issue that greatly increases the costs of healthcare that isnt even mentioned in Obamacare. And I know I havent gotten to mentioning it yet, but Ron Paul did a decent job of mentioning it in the fact that our current malpractice polices are greatly increasing the cost of healthcare, and it is completely true that many US citizens have went on vacation to another country and obtained major and expensive surgeries while on vacation.
I'll review the CHIP you posted, and go over other details when I return and have the time, but in short Obamacare ignores all the issues with our healthcare system and just establishes illegal government mandates on our system.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Eos - 2011-02-01
Anonymous Moose Wrote:So the UN's declarations are more important than our sovereignty? More important than our constitution? More important than our freedoms and choices?
Its not the UN's place to decide world policy. It is the people and their government's place to decide what they want their public policy to be.
The entire purpose of the UN, of which we are voluntarily a member, is to provide a degree of unified standards upon which all nations can agree as a baseline of a civilized society. "Choosing" not to have healthcare for our people is one step removed from choosing not to have a minimum wage, not to have trials or to be slaves and using "culture" as an excuse.
Your claim that "getting healthcare was never a problem in this country. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat patients" is absolute unmitigated bullshit of the sort that normally only comes from the supremely naive who have never had to actually worry about such things. Hospitals can easily turn away anything they deem as non-emergency for inability to pay, and even if you do have an emergency they don't just write you off as a loss, they send your ass to collections and pursue you for every dime they can get ruining your credit rating in the process.
I'm not dancing around the issues, I mostly don't give a damn. Anything in place that can be improved and worked upon is better than nothing at all. Most of the boogeyman horrors people cite are idiotic crap. I don't believe the so called obamacare was done right, I don't believe it even does what it was originally intended to do, I don't think it's perfect and it's certainly not how I would've done it, but it is one positive thing we've never had before - a start.
Someone got off their ass and tried to make it happen finally. It came out looking like the bastardized piece of drek it is because of what it took to make it, but again, you weren't so hot when you first got squatted out either. Things take time to clean up and make presentable and the only way that happens is when people redirect some of their energy they're rabidly throwing at tearing it down to actually fixing it instead.
You're more familiar with CHIP than you realize btw, MiChild is Michigan's implementation of it. Doesn't work quite the way you thought it did, now does it?
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - TaliaNCo - 2011-02-01
Eosian Wrote:There are several reasons why an individual could claim exemption, being a member of a religion that does not believe in insurance is one of them. Islam is one of those religions. Muslims believe that health insurance isharaam, or forbidden; because they liken the ambiguity and probability of insurance to gambling. This belief excludes them from any of the requirements, mandates, or penalties set forth in the bill. Other excluded groups include Amish, American Indians, and Christian Scientists.
I have to say that these sorts of things irritate me to no end. Just because you're part of a specific group, you can claim exemption. However, the rest of us who don't have any religious background/belief, but have specific reasons as to "why" we don't agree with something, we can't claim exemption. Mandatory immunizations is one specific thing I have a major issue with and because I'm not part of a specific group, my own feelings/beliefs are shot down and I'm made to "comply" with these rules and regulations.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Eos - 2011-02-01
TaliaNCo Wrote:I have to say that these sorts of things irritate me to no end.
I agree that if there are any exceptions permitted (ie: the system is not truly mandatory) they should be open to anyone who wishes to, for whatever their reason, as long as they accept the same consequences as everyone else who is exempt. In this case for example; They're not eligible for the social security benefits they don't pay into if I recall. That's more than fair to me that they should not be able to reap the benefits of something they wish to be exempt from paying into.
The question of when an exemption is or is not appropriate is questionable though. In the case of health insurance people should to some extent be able to opt out voluntarily. In the case of immunizations they should not. The first is a conscious choice to assume responsibility for yourself. The second is choosing to be a risk to others as a source of potential contagion.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - MasPan - 2011-02-01
Holypie Wrote:So you're saying that because something is the slightest bit not capitalist that it's corrupt from the core? Please explain, because a new tax is implemented you think it's going to destroy your country?
It's not a tax, it's a fine. And, at risk of slippery slope, it's simple enough to imagine occasional non-capitalistic changes adding up and changing the economic system in the country over time. So yeah.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Anonymous Moose - 2011-02-01
Eosian Wrote:The entire purpose of the UN, of which we are voluntarily a member, is to provide a degree of unified standards upon which all nations can agree as a baseline of a civilized society. "Choosing" not to have healthcare for our people is one step removed from choosing not to have a minimum wage, not to have trials or to be slaves and using "culture" as an excuse.
Your claim that "getting healthcare was never a problem in this country. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat patients" is absolute unmitigated bullpomegranate of the sort that normally only comes from the supremely naive who have never had to actually worry about such things. Hospitals can easily turn away anything they deem as non-emergency for inability to pay, and even if you do have an emergency they don't just write you off as a loss, they send your ass to collections and pursue you for every dime they can get ruining your credit rating in the process.
I'm not dancing around the issues, I mostly don't give a damn. Anything in place that can be improved and worked upon is better than nothing at all. Most of the boogeyman horrors people cite are idiotic crap. I don't believe the so called obamacare was done right, I don't believe it even does what it was originally intended to do, I don't think it's perfect and it's certainly not how I would've done it, but it is one positive thing we've never had before - a start.
Someone got off their ass and tried to make it happen finally. It came out looking like the bastardized piece of drek it is because of what it took to make it, but again, you weren't so hot when you first got squatted out either. Things take time to clean up and make presentable and the only way that happens is when people redirect some of their energy they're rabidly throwing at tearing it down to actually fixing it instead.
You're more familiar with CHIP than you realize btw, MiChild is Michigan's implementation of it. Doesn't work quite the way you thought it did, now does it?
The UN's purpose was to prevent another world war, not be a world government to dictate our's and other government's policies.
Regarding collections, I already mentioned that we need reform when it comes to debt.
And regardless, people cannot be refused in emergencies. If you need healthcare that badly, you will get it.
Apparently you are so good at not giving a damn that you dont realize that Obamacare hurts and doesnt solve any issues what so ever. Also you are wrong about one thing. A start isnt always a good thing, especially when it is a start in the wrong direction.
Also, I was unfamiliar with CHIP because I didnt realize at first what the acronym meant. I was in a bit of a hurry to get out of here at the end of my post.
And I have to say I disagree with it. Not the healthcare portion, but the federal involvement. Not only is that illegal, but not every state needs this policy. Each state should, on its own, decide what it needs and how they will spend each state's money. The federal government should get it's hands out of other government's business and focus on their own duties as defined by the constitution.
Edit: Regarding vaccines, there has been recent studies showing problems with them. One study I recently heard of done at the University of Pittsberg showed that the Hep B vaccine that is given near the time of birth alters the brainstem.
Regarding autism, its a lie that thimerosal doesnt cause it. Give me some time to pull up some articles on that topic. Deal with this small crash course for now: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/201004mercuryinchildhood.htm
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Stereo - 2011-02-01
Can I just air a little issue I have with calling this "Obamacare"...
Obama didn't choose this. The entire ruling body did. It's the best compromise the Dems could push through, and it's definitely not their fault it has so many holes. The Republicans shot down every better option, because it's in big business's interest to keep health care profitable.
I do blame the Democrats for not pushing it through in original form despite those pimentos, but that's neither here nor there. Fact is, this is a mashup of things both parties wanted.
Could the autism thing go to another thread? It rests with the people making extraordinary claims (vis. "vaccinations cause autism") to provide proof to back up their claim. The null hypothesis, "vaccinations are unrelated to autism" is just the natural expectation and doesn't need to be proven because it holds true for so many things ("mesos are unrelated to the birth rate in Tonga", "malaria is unrelated to diet coke", etc.).
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Corn - 2011-02-01
Anonymous Moose Wrote:The UN's purpose was to prevent another world war, not be a world government to dictate our's and other government's policies.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - kanevaldier - 2011-02-01
Stereo Wrote:Can I just air a little issue I have with calling this "Obamacare"...Obama didn't choose this. The entire ruling body did. It's the best compromise the Dems could push through, and it's definitely not their fault it has so many holes. The Republicans shot down every better option, because it's in big business's interest to keep health care profitable. I do blame the Democrats for not pushing it through in original form despite those pimentos, but that's neither here nor there. Fact is, this is a mashup of things both parties wanted.
Could the autism thing go to another thread? It rests with the people making extraordinary claims (vis. "vaccinations cause autism") to provide proof to back up their claim. The null hypothesis, "vaccinations are unrelated to autism" is just the natural expectation and doesn't need to be proven because it holds true for so many things ("mesos are unrelated to the birth rate in Tonga", "malaria is unrelated to diet coke", etc.).
First of all, Obama did in fact choose this bill. He and the other dems in office who at the time controlled both houses fully. They did not need the republicans to vote for it at all as they it could have made it through with little to no resistance. However, the republicans were trying to shoot it down because of its unconstitutional nature. The government does not have the right to make you buy or not buy anything. As for big business, both parties are in bed with them equally. One only need to look at the federal reserve to figure that out. Nearly every head of the fed has come from big business, i.e. AIG, Goldman Saks, ect.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government is supposed to have limited powers, while the states themselves are to have the actuall power within their individual borders. That was the way the contry was founded. That has changed however over the years as the federal government has grown more and more power hungry. They dont care about you, me, or anyone else unless you have a very large sum of cash in your bankroll.
As for the vaccinations, That is very relavent to this thread as it is part of the heathcare package. This is just another way for the government to control the masses. By creating a problem and then giving a vaccine to fix/prevent it. Flu shots are one example of this.
The simple fact is that everything the govenment tries to control will somehow get messed up.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Corn - 2011-02-01
kanevaldier Wrote:First of all, Obama did in fact choose this bill. He and the other dems in office who at the time controlled both houses fully. They did not need the republicans to vote for it at all as they it could have made it through with little to no resistance. However, the republicans were trying to shoot it down because of its unconstitutional nature. The government does not have the right to make you buy or not buy anything. As for big business, both parties are in bed with them equally. One only need to look at the federal reserve to figure that out. Nearly every head of the fed has come from big business, i.e. AIG, Goldman Saks, ect.
The fact of the matter is that the federal government is supposed to have limited powers, while the states themselves are to have the actuall power within their individual borders. That was the way the contry was founded. That was the way the country was founded. Unfortunately, those Articles of Confederation didn't work too well, eh? That has changed however over the years as the federal government has grown more and more power hungry. They dont care about you, me, or anyone else unless you have a very large sum of cash in your bankroll. As for the vaccinations, That is very relavent to this thread as it is part of the heathcare package. This is just another way for the government to control the masses. By creating a problem and then giving a vaccine to fix/prevent it. Flu shots are one example of this. So you're suggesting that the government bioengineered some viruses and then tried to cure us of them.
The simple fact is that everything the govenment tries to control will somehow get messed up.
.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Mira - 2011-02-01
About health care; I think people don't realize what this bill actually does to HELP people. It keeps college students on their parent's health care. It stops health care companies from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. I lose my health care the day I turn 18. I'm planning on going to college, and because my family is not well off, my hopes of getting coverage are slim to none. How can I afford to go to college, buy books, buy food, and pay for heath care? With this economy, my chances of getting a good paying job to cover all that is also low. So yeah. This bill will actually help people. Why don't we repeal the part that abuses the interstate commerce clause and leave the rest alone?
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Anonymous Moose - 2011-02-01
Mira Wrote:About health care; I think people don't realize what this bill actually does to HELP people. It keeps college students on their parent's health care. It stops health care companies from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. I lose my health care the day I turn 18. I'm planning on going to college, and because my family is not well off, my hopes of getting coverage are slim to none. How can I afford to go to college, buy books, buy food, and pay for heath care? With this economy, my chances of getting a good paying job to cover all that is also low. So yeah. This bill will actually help people. Why don't we repeal the part that abuses the interstate commerce clause and leave the rest alone?
Its a myth that the heathcare bill prevents denial of coverage for preexisting conditions. Insurance companies just need to pay a $2000 fee to deny you. Also, its your's and your parent's job to negotiate a health insurance plan to fit your own personal needs, not the government's. If you want to be on your parent's healthcare plan throughout college, then your parents should get one that allows you (my parents obtained this sort of plan).
In the event that the law limits your choices, then that specific law needs to change, but we dont need to have Obamacare.
Yet another Federal Judge rules Obamacare Unconstitutional. - Eos - 2011-02-01
Anonymous Moose Wrote:If you want to be on your parent's healthcare plan throughout college, then your parents should get one that allows you (my parents obtained this sort of plan).
Do you realize the degree to which this makes you sound like someone who's never had a day of true want in their life?
Some people don't have the choices and freedoms you may take for granted because they cost.