The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law?

The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fightdirecto -> The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 7:04:31 AM)
The sub-text when people claim "The government has no right to madate that I buy health insurance"?: [image]local://upfiles/42188/4F6A1D64B9B64892A02C0583949F8768.jpg[/image] Many health care mandates already exist in US quote: The individual insurance requirement that the Supreme Court is reviewing is not the first federal mandate involving health care. There is a Medicare payroll tax on workers and employers, for example, and a requirement that hospitals provide free emergency services to indigents. Health care is full of government dictates, some arguably more intrusive than President Obama’s overhaul law. It is a wrinkle that has caught the attention of the justices. Most of the mandates apply to providers such as hospitals and insurers. For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others. One mandate affects just about everybody: Workers must pay a tax to finance Medicare, which collects about $200 billion a year. It is on your W-2 form, line 6, “Medicare tax withheld.’’ Workers must pay it even if they don’t have health insurance. Employees of a company get to split the tax with their employer. The self-employed owe the full amount, 2.9 percent of earnings. Lindsey Donner, a small-business owner from San Diego, pays the Medicare tax although she and her husband are uninsured. Donner, 27, says she doesn’t see much difference between the mandate that workers help finance Medicare and the health care law’s requirement that nearly everyone has to have some sort of health insurance. “My understanding of what is going on in the Supreme Court is that it seems to be something of a semantics issue,’’ she said. “Ultimately, I don’t see the big difference. If I am paying for Medicare, why can’t I also be paying into something that would help me right now or in five years if I want to have children?’’ Donner is a copywriter for businesses; her husband specializes in graphics design. In the past they had a health plan with a high deductible, but they found they were paying monthly premiums for insurance they never used - something she said they couldn’t afford on a tight budget. Under the law, people such as Donner and her husband would have to get insurance or pay a fine. But they may qualify for federal subsidies to help pay premiums for policies that would be more comprehensive. Preventive care would be covered with no copayments. “We have jobs, we pay our bills, we pay our taxes,’’ said Donner. “Yet it is very difficult to find affordable, reasonable health care.’’ There is no question the Medicare payroll tax is a government mandate, said Mark Hayes, former chief health counsel for the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee. If it is un-Constitutional to mandate individuals must get health insurance - is it not also un-Constitutional to mandate hospitals provide free emergency services to those who do not have health insurance, effectively mandating that those people who do have health insurance must pay for those who do not have health insurance?

Fightdirecto -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 7:19:30 AM)
Questioning the "Freedom" to be a free rider quote: I understand there are Constitutional issues to be untangled involving the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment and the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867. There are enough legal issues in the trial of the Affordable Care Act to occupy the Supreme Court for three days of debate and to keep armchair legal analysts spinning for months. I understand there are politics and corporate interests involved, just as there have been for the 40 years Washington has been debating health care reform, though never as intensely as in the last three years. But even after all the newsprint, pixels and hot air devoted to this issue, I still don’t understand how health insurance regulation became a test of our fundamental freedoms... I’ve tried to figure out what Fundamental Freedom is at risk from the dreaded individual mandate. I can’t find it in the Bill of Rights. It’s not one of FDR’s Four Freedoms. Near as I can tell, what’s at risk is the freedom to save money by not buying insurance, then count on the taxpayers and those who purchase insurance to pay for your visits to the emergency room and your stay in the ICU.

Hillwilliam -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 7:22:14 AM)
The government mandates that you must have liability insurance if you drive. Why shouldn't they mandate that I don't have to pay for someone's treatment who doesn't want to buy insurance?

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 7:29:00 AM)
Well, I can't speak for everyone who is opposed to the mandate but for myself it has nothing to do with health care or insurance or whether such things are a good idea or not. It has to do with how much power we are willing to give to the government. When does it end? It seems as if for some people the solution to every problem is increased government power. History has shown us time and time again how governments abuse power... why then are some people seemingly so eager to grant even more power to the government?

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:09:38 AM)
History shows us time and again how individuals abuse power. Not sure that either or leads to a conclusive condemnation. Checks and balances were supposed to gurad that, unfortunate dismantling of structures that support that sort of environment have perverted much of what we hope to accomplish.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Well, I can't speak for everyone who is opposed to the mandate but for myself it has nothing to do with health care or insurance or whether such things are a good idea or not. It has to do with how much power we are willing to give to the government. When does it end? It seems as if for some people the solution to every problem is increased government power. History has shown us time and time again how governments abuse power... why then are some people seemingly so eager to grant even more power to the government? What does this statement actually mean. People, not just governments, tend to abuse power. Corporations, monarchs, employers, police....the list can go on and on because power does tend to corrupt to borrow from Lord Acton. The question is how can the necessary exercise of power be controlled best. Citizens are generally powerless (aside from boycotts - try that in the health insurance market..lol) to affect corporate actions, but still retain some power to alter or change the government thus providing some check on the abuse. As far as actual expansions of the Federal government, there have been several notable ones and almost none have had even near tyrannical consequences. The first expansion was the adoption of the Hamiltonian plan of support for improvements and manufactures in the nation’s infancy; few really complain about that although it was a large issue at the time. The next large expansion was after the Civil War to protect the rights of freed slaves (there were many Southerners against this – quelle surprise, and some of this feeling lingers even if not spoken in polite company). The Progressive Era saw a large expansion of Federal power which granted women the right to vote, established in income tax, and saw Prohibition passed (an abuse that was corrected), established the FDA and USDA but even my most conservative friends do not really think the meat they eat should not be inspected and the drug they take not tested. The next large expansion took place in response to the Great Depression and WWII and let to the burgeoning of the American middle class (conservatives tend to love the 50’s while forgetting the liberal consensus that dominated government and obviously even few Tea Partiers want to jettison Social Security). The rise of the national security state during the cold war certainly has created some abuse and conservative and liberals of good-faith agree with this and would work together to limit the abuse. The next expansion came during the great society and included the protection of voting and economic rights for African-Americans as well as the establishment of the much loved Medicare and the much maligned Federal anti-poverty programs. I can see legitimate conservative arguments that this was a mixed bag. The next large expansion was the wartime powers assumed by George W. Bush which generated remarkably little conservative outrage and finally the Bush/Obama rescue of the economy which was shockingly successful and cost under 30 billion dollars. Not a horrible record and if you are an outsider group the expansion of Federal power has been indispensable in securing your rights.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:35:00 AM)
quote: History shows us time and again how individuals abuse power. Exactly! Here is what I don't understand. Many people (as can be seen here on the CM boards) rant about the increasing power (and abuse thereof) of corporations. I do not disagree with this as I am distrustful of all power. Where many of them lose me is in their proposed "solution" to increasing corporate power, which is to take that power away from the corporations (so far, so good) and then hand it over to the government. WHAT? The solution to a small group of people abusing power is to hand that power over to another small group of people so they can have their turn abusing it? I don't get it. What makes the government so much more trustworthy than corporations? This is presuming, of course, that the dividing line between corporate and government power still exists. The best answer, as I see it, is to diffuse power... greater local control. Unfortunately, as soon as you suggest it you get a whole bunch of nonsensical rants about people who believe in State's Rights being racists who support slavery, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah (as if the fact that some peoples misuse of the idea of State's Rights somehow invalidates the idea). I've said it before and i'll say it again... it baffles me that the wing of politics that came up with the slogan "power to the people" balks at the notion of actually giving power to the people. Actually, it doesn't baffle me... it is very in keeping with human nature. It does depress me, however, that the left side of the political spectrum - which is supposed to be about freedom - is just as power hungry and tyrannical at the right.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:40:29 AM)
Local control IS government. The closer you are to the locality of the power, the larger the abuse to the person. I gotta tell you, from my perspective the least offensive to me is federal, and my problems with interference and abuse start at state (a little), county (a lot) township (great deal) and city (fuckheads the lot of them).

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:47:38 AM)
quote: Local control IS government. The closer you are to the locality of the power, the larger the abuse to the person. I gotta tell you, from my perspective the least offensive to me is federal, and my problems with interference and abuse start at state (a little), county (a lot) township (great deal) and city (fuckheads the lot of them). But the closer you are to the locality of power the easier it is to deal with its abuse by voting out the fuckers (a lot less people need convincing). Even if you don't succeed, if the situation is so intolerable to you, you can always move somewhere that is less objectionable. That is one of the beauties of State's Rights when it comes to things like education or health care... if you don't like the way things are run in your state - you have forty-nine others to choose from!

tweakabelle -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:48:39 AM)
Whatever about history telling us time and time again that governments abuse power, there is probably several thousand volumes about how private and public (owned by shareholders) companies abuse their power, repeatedly, day in day out. We have elections where we can make judgements about governments that abuse their power. What redress do private citizens have over large corporations that behave badly? The only ways that private citizens can influence corporations is individually through the market place, or collectively through regulation. Or in the courts - a very expensive place to lose. Health care is simply far too critical a matter to trust to private corporations whose primary interest is making money. It is far better (and cheaper) to organise a health care system where the primary goal is offering first class health care to its clients. If I have to stay in a hospital or to undergo a course of medical treatment, I want the primary purpose of those providing that health care to be my welfare and health, not their business interests. I want my health to be the first priority of all involved.

PatrickG38 -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:51:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: History shows us time and again how individuals abuse power. Exactly! Here is what I don't understand. Many people (as can be seen here on the CM boards) rant about the increasing power (and abuse thereof) of corporations. I do not disagree with this as I am distrustful of all power. Where many of them lose me is in their proposed "solution" to increasing corporate power, which is to take that power away from the corporations (so far, so good) and then hand it over to the government. WHAT? The solution to a small group of people abusing power is to hand that power over to another small group of people so they can have their turn abusing it? I don't get it. What makes the government so much more trustworthy than corporations? This is presuming, of course, that the dividing line between corporate and government power still exists. The best answer, as I see it, is to diffuse power... greater local control. Unfortunately, as soon as you suggest it you get a whole bunch of nonsensical rants about people who believe in State's Rights being racists who support slavery, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah (as if the fact that some peoples misuse of the idea of State's Rights somehow invalidates the idea). I've said it before and i'll say it again... it baffles me that the wing of politics that came up with the slogan "power to the people" balks at the notion of actually giving power to the people. Actually, it doesn't baffle me... it is very in keeping with human nature. It does depress me, however, that the left side of the political spectrum - which is supposed to be about freedom - is just as power hungry and tyrannical at the right. Marc, If you have not read Christopher Lasch you should, you would enjoy him as he has somewhat similar views, I think. Let me see if I can give a good faith explanation that will reduce your bafflement. In a modern industrial democracy, I do not believe a model of diffused power can truly exist and that the centralizing tendencies are historically unavoidable and have occurred universally as economies have industrialized. Therefore, if I am correct about that, you must pick your poison so to speak and I think a democratic government subject to at least some popular and cultural control is a better repository of power than an unaccountable corporation particularly in matters that cause market aberrations (health care, let’s say).

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:54:28 AM)
Doesnt squuare with reality. Note the recall of walker, the slashing of education at the state level (states rights) in favor of other bullshit like busting unions, voter id, staduim proposals and other stupid shit. Nevertheless, affordable healthcare shouldnt be the arguement for the slippery slope of the evil dictatorship of federal government coming to take your right to choose to capitulate to corporations taking everything away from you.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 8:59:30 AM)
quote: What does this statement actually mean. People, not just governments, tend to abuse power. Governments are people... people with power. That is my point.

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:04:43 AM)
Well, if that is the case, who has abused the power within the federal government, which people, in that we clearly don't have any form of affordable healthcare? Or does the abuse lie without the government, in the outer darkness?

Fightdirecto -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:06:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Well, I can't speak for everyone who is opposed to the mandate but for myself it has nothing to do with health care or insurance or whether such things are a good idea or not. It has to do with how much power we are willing to give to the government. When does it end? It seems as if for some people the solution to every problem is increased government power. History has shown us time and time again how governments abuse power... why then are some people seemingly so eager to grant even more power to the government? And here we clearly disagree. I see this as people believing they have a "right" to free load and expecting others to take care of them. In my more cynical moments, I think of some American, who can afford to pay for health insurance but choses instead not to do so, struck by a car. The ambulance arrives, and, when notified that the person chose not to purchase health insurance when they could have, they leave the person in the ditch by the side of the road to die. Because he wanted to defend his "freedom" not to buy health insurance when he could afford to, he should pay the consequences for his decision, even up to giving his life to defend that "freedom".

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:09:22 AM)
quote: Doesnt squuare with reality. Note the recall of walker, the slashing of education at the state level (states rights) in favor of other bullshit like busting unions, voter id, staduim proposals and other stupid shit. [Emphasis Mine] Walker is the Governor. How often does the President get recalled? How often does the entire Congress get recalled? You are proving my point. What if the federal government decided to start slashing education? Would it be easier or more difficult to oppose them? quote: Nevertheless, affordable healthcare shouldnt be the arguement for the slippery slope of the evil dictatorship of federal government coming to take your right to choose to capitulate to corporations taking everything away from you. But the federal government has taken away my right to choose. I have been order to have health insurance (ie, to give money to corporations) and if I don't then I get fined.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:13:39 AM)
quote: And here we clearly disagree. I see this as people believing they have a "right" to free load and expecting others to take care of them. In my more cynical moments, I think of some American, who can afford to pay for health insurance but choses instead not to do so, struck by a car. The ambulance arrives, and, when notified that the person chose not to purchase health insurance when they could have, they leave the person in the ditch by the side of the road to die. Because he wanted to defend his "freedom" not to buy health insurance when he could afford to, he should pay the consequences for his decision, even up to giving his life to defend that "freedom". Should we also fine people for being unemployed? Should we fine overweight people? What about people who have children but can't afford to raise them? How much should we fine them? You have to draw the line somewhere... but then, that's where all political arguments come down to, where do we draw the lines?

mnottertail -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:16:15 AM)
how often does an entire state administration get recalled? There are no federal laws that I am aware of for recalling a president. (they can be tossed out of office however). There certainly are no federal recalls for recalling a senator or congressman. Why would the state of Minnesota allow some dipshit in Wisconsin (for example) to run a recall movement on my guys? Answer the question, and veer on topic a little, where is the abuse that has led us to the path of no affordable healthcare, and if it is the federal government, what is local government going to do about it?

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:17:17 AM)
quote: Well, if that is the case, who has abused the power within the federal government, which people, in that we clearly don't have any form of affordable healthcare? Follow the money trail... who is getting large campaign donations from the health care industry? quote: Or does the abuse lie without the government, in the outer darkness? It lies within the savage depths of the human heart. Okay, when I start getting poetical, it means its time for lunch but the short answer to your question is... human nature.

Marc2b -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/2/2012 9:22:20 AM)
quote: how often does an entire state administration get recalled? They can be recalled every time there is a new election and, as I said, there are a lot fewer people to convince. quote: There are no federal laws that I am aware of for recalling a president. (they can be tossed out of office however). There certainly are no federal recalls for recalling a senator or congressman. Exactly. Getting rid of them is a lot more difficult (more people to convince). quote: Why would the state of Minnesota allow some dipshit in Wisconsin (for example) to run a recall movement on my guys? I have no idea what you are talking about here. quote: Answer the question, and veer on topic a little, where is the abuse that has led us to the path of no affordable healthcare, Asked and answered. quote: and if it is the federal government, what is local government going to do about it? BINGO!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875