Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[krc1995]

Where was the uproar over the legal requirements to have car insurance? Why is this piece of legislation any more of an infringement on personal rights than requiring insurance for your vehicle?

 

I'd like to believe the level of upset over this isn't simply based on party lines. But I'm having a hard time not seeing it that way.

I guess we all still have the right to pick and choose exactly what we want to complain about.

 

However, I view the ACA mandate to purchase health insurance a little differently than your example of auto insurance. Anyone who drives a car has a very real possibility of inficting direct damage on another persons body or property. If that person has no insurance and no other resources, the harmed person may not be fairly compensated for their loss. That is not the case with personal health insurance. If a person does not have health insurance, it harms no one other themself. Of course I am disregarding the cost shifting problem but, that problem is really caused by the notion that care must provided to those who cannot afford it and not by the ability to choose whether or not you purchase health insurance.

 

If you're telling me it's not a 1:1 analogy, I'll agree. But it's close enough to make the point.

 

Yes, you have the right to choose which issues to get upset about. But it's pretty easy to tune out people who only gripe about one side of the aisle when both are frequently at fault.

 

it's not a good analogy. Social security is a better one.

['SkersRule]

I'm not aged, blind, disabled, or low income, but my taxes help pay for this and I'm fine with it. This ruling isn't going to produce a lot of earth-shattering changes. People are overreacting.

 

Over-reacting? Let's say you're a vegetarian and Congress wants to tax you for the meat you're not eating, they tax you for not having a child instead of the two they require, or they tax you for not having solar panels on your house. Where does this end? This scotus ruling makes absolutely no sense and essentially means that as long as the government calls it a tax they can tax you for buying and not buying at the same time. And you're telling me you'd be "okay" with those types of taxes?

 

I'm not against paying some taxes. I like traveling on well maintained paved roads, having a strong military, and other useful things our tax dollars enable. But this ACA ruling is beyond idiotic.

[krill]

It did, thanks to our very own embarrassment of a Senator invoking the Cornhusker Kickback......

 

I'm not going to defend Nelson, but Nebraska's deal for Medicaid was ultimately struck from the bill. With the court ruling on Medicaid it's less of an issue anyway since states will be able to opt out of the expansion, which isn't fully funded with federal money. The "cornhusker kickback" was an unfortunate example of what regularly happens in congress to garner support for legislation.

 

I do tend to agree with people who are angry about no option to opt out of buying health insurance besides a monetary penalty. Individuals should be able to sign a waiver for emergency services. Then, perhaps when they are confronted with consequences, or enough people have pointlessly died, the topic can be revisited.

[knapplc]

People are overreacting.

 

Yes. And they are also reacting to the letter behind the name of the guy promulgating the bill (D). There would be a decidedly different tune being sung here had a Republican president implemented this kind of healthcare act.

['SkersRule]

Yes. And they are also reacting to the letter behind the name of the guy promulgating the bill (D). There would be a decidedly different tune being sung here had a Republican president implemented this kind of healthcare act.

 

I'd like to think you are 100% wrong here, but...

 

I've said this before, if Congress would have simply said something along the lines of:

 

"We're going to provide a low cost health insurance plan to those who do not have it..."

 

I sincerely doubt there would have been this ugly partisan bickering let alone a court case which goes all the way to scotus.

[Moiraine]

I'm not aged, blind, disabled, or low income, but my taxes help pay for this and I'm fine with it. This ruling isn't going to produce a lot of earth-shattering changes. People are overreacting.

 

Over-reacting? Let's say you're a vegetarian and Congress wants to tax you for the meat you're not eating, they tax you for not having a child instead of the two they require, or they tax you for not having solar panels on your house. Where does this end? This scotus ruling makes absolutely no sense and essentially means that as long as the government calls it a tax they can tax you for buying and not buying at the same time. And you're telling me you'd be "okay" with those types of taxes?

 

I'm not against paying some taxes. I like traveling on well maintained paved roads, having a strong military, and other useful things our tax dollars enable. But this ACA ruling is beyond idiotic.

 

The overreacting I'm speaking of is the assumption that we're going to be taxed for meat we're not eating, not having two children, or having solar panels... or any other of the fun ideas I've read in this thread. This isn't the first time we've been taxed for something we don't have. We've been taxed for things we don't have for decades. I already mentioned two examples. Speaking of being taxed for not having children, people who DO have children get tax exemptions. Since I don't get a tax exemption (because I don't have kids), I'm footing part of the bills that those with children aren't paying, so in a way I am being taxed for not having them. Then there's the marriage penalty. Admittedly I don't know much about it, but people used to have to pay more taxes for being married than for being single. You're cherry picking one example to get pissed off about when there are likely thousands of them that have been in existence for years.

 

If you hate what's in the actual health care bill, that's a different story. I personally think insurance companies are just going to raise their rates. I could be wrong, I don't know what, if anything, the bill does to protect against that. Except that I think there's something in there about increased competition. There are tons of ideas in the bill that I think are good, I'm just worried that the insurance companies will make up for being forced to do the good things in the bill by making it more expensive.

 

 

Edit: Thought of another one. You mentioned being taxed for meat we're not eating:

 

 

I rarely eat meat. I eat less grains than I eat meat. Most of my diet is legumes, vegetables, and fruits. Yet the taxes I pay toward agriculture are going mostly toward subsidizing meat, dairy, and grains.

[Comish]

It did, thanks to our very own embarrassment of a Senator invoking the Cornhusker Kickback......

 

I'm not going to defend Nelson, but Nebraska's deal for Medicaid was ultimately struck from the bill. With the court ruling on Medicaid it's less of an issue anyway since states will be able to opt out of the expansion, which isn't fully funded with federal money. The "cornhusker kickback" was an unfortunate example of what regularly happens in congress to garner support for legislation.

 

I do tend to agree with people who are angry about no option to opt out of buying health insurance besides a monetary penalty. Individuals should be able to sign a waiver for emergency services. Then, perhaps when they are confronted with consequences, or enough people have pointlessly died, the topic can be revisited.

Nelson's treacherousness eventually being struck really has no bearing or relief on his motivation and disingenuousness that occurred at the time of his decision. That call continues to be an embarrassment nationally as the term Cornhusker Kickback has been adopted nationally as a symbol of all forms of nefarious pork. I have observed Nelson for years saying one thing within the state and then voting very differently once ensconced within the beltway mindset (not that many others don't do that as well........but it still rankles me that our Senator treats his constituents that way).

[Yossarian]

People are overreacting.

 

Yes. And they are also reacting to the letter behind the name of the guy promulgating the bill (D). There would be a decidedly different tune being sung here had a Republican president implemented this kind of healthcare act.

 

Actually, I really do not like the idea of the Government (you know, the guys who were directing the Fast and Furious Fiasco (F3), the spending of $800,000,000,000 on shovel-ready jobs that were not shovel ready at all, and giving Solyndra $500,000,000 when there was evidence that the company was getting ready to go tango-uniform) managing the take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. That is not "manufactured concern" and it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat oir a Republican doing it. The cost of $1,600,000,000,000 over the course of ten years is simply icing on the cake of my concern.

[Comish]

Many have stated that there are some good provisions in the bill and that part is true. But it's also true that those provisions could have been implemented in a far, far simpler matter than this monstrosity that very few have even read.

 

Which makes me believe this bill is ultimately not about health care. It's about the government's insatiable appetite for power and control and starts by hijacking 1/6th of the economy.

['SkersRule]

Nearly every time government gets involved they end up making the situation worse. The fight against drugs, poverty, obesity, you name it and it's been a spectacular governmental failure. This is related to healthcare because government the vast majority of the time hardly ever fixes anything, they only make the problem worse and it doesn't seem to matter what we're talking about.

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and give props to NASA because they do exactly what they're chartered to do so that's one "win" for the government agency but I can't think of any others--can you?

 

So I'm asking you, when was the last time a government program or bureaucracy actually solved or greatly diminished the "ill" it was created for?

 

And to the point about the "tax" for not having healthcare being legal it just makes me wonder why some people think that government won't start taxing you for everything you don't have that they think you should. Because if any one knows human nature it is to take a mile when given an inch to use an old cliche.

['SkersRule]

Many have stated that there are some good provisions in the bill and that part is true. But it's also true that those provisions could have been implemented in a far, far simpler matter than this monstrosity that very few have even read.

 

Which makes me believe this bill is ultimately not about health care. It's about the government's insatiable appetite for power and control and starts by hijacking 1/6th of the economy.

 

You are obviously a right-wing nut. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the other elite liberals only have your best interests foremost in their minds. After all, they and only they, have the intelligence to make the decisions in your life because you are clearly not smart enough to think for yourself.

 

And just to be perfectly clear...

[Moiraine]

makes me wonder why some people think that government won't start taxing you for everything you don't have that they think you should.

Why do you wonder why? I don't think the posts I've made on it are complete drivel but you seem to gloss over them every time, so I guess I'll give up posting them so you can keep wondering.

[lo country]

Let's see the US Postal Service, a monopoly run by the Federal Govt, is broke. Now folks trust them (want them) to effectively run your health care. Look at how broke down the Social Security and Medicare is. Again, you really want the govt in charge of your health care. Rep or Dem doesn't matter. Just another example of a govt that is already too large getting much worse.

[lo country]

Nearly every time government gets involved they end up making the situation worse. The fight against drugs, poverty, obesity, you name it and it's been a spectacular governmental failure. This is related to healthcare because government the vast majority of the time hardly ever fixes anything, they only make the problem worse and it doesn't seem to matter what we're talking about.

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and give props to NASA because they do exactly what they're chartered to do so that's one "win" for the government agency but I can't think of any others--can you?

 

So I'm asking you, when was the last time a government program or bureaucracy actually solved or greatly diminished the "ill" it was created for?

 

And to the point about the "tax" for not having healthcare being legal it just makes me wonder why some people think that government won't start taxing you for everything you don't have that they think you should. Because if any one knows human nature it is to take a mile when given an inch to use an old cliche.

 

Or an obesity tax, or a non-green vehicle tax, or a non-energy star rated house tax..............

[krill]

Many have stated that there are some good provisions in the bill and that part is true. But it's also true that those provisions could have been implemented in a far, far simpler matter than this monstrosity that very few have even read.

 

After Clinton's reform efforts failed, it hurt him so badly politically that health care was not even a topic throughout the rest of his tenure. Then Republicans didn't do a damn thing about it for 8 years besides passing Medicare part D, which was basically a big handout that wasn't funded with new tax revenue or cuts. They have done absolutely nothing constructive for the past 3 1/2 years on the matter. So excuse me if it seems a little disingenuous to say well, there's some good things, but it's a monstrosity. Have you ever read a bill, or part of a bill? It takes a full "page" to express a rule for legal and clear definition reasons, and a full "page" is not a full page of tiny text. It's not fair at all to judge legislation on length. The 2400 "page" health care bill can be summarized in a few pages that almost anyone can understand. The actual text of the bill is more like a programming language; yes it's there to read, and you can act like it's voodoo magic, but the compiled output is much different and easier to understand.