What do you ALL think about OBAMACARE?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Because the individual mandate is basically toothless.

If true, then why did they include it in the bill? Of course, a simple rider on another bill could supply the IRS with the necessary implants.

The toothless part is not exactly true. They can still charge interest, and deduct the amount owed from any Federal payments, such as an income tax refund. Further, it will still show as a liability and ding your credit score, and there is no income cap an the tax.

[dalegg 143]

Because the individual mandate is basically toothless. They can't dock your wages, or jail you or go after your assets if you refuse to pay the penalty, which is the opposite of when a person doesn't pay their taxes.

But beyond that, I don't understand why people would get upset with a mandate when it is mandatory to have car insurance if you own or drive a vehicle. Anyone who's been hit by an uninsured driver quickly becomes a fierce advocate for mandatory coverage.

There's two problems with these statements. First of all, if the individual mandate truly is toothless, then we have a serious problem. The healthcare proposal is relying in part on more participation by those who can afford to buy insurance that currently aren't for funding. If we can't count on that revenue, then this is going to cost us even more than we thought. But the idea that the government won't try to collect taxes that are owed them is to me ludicrus. As we have seen, its all in the way you interpret the law. If nothing else, people who decide they don't want to pay are going to at least have to hire good tax attorneys to avoid being harrassed by the IRS.

The second problem is with comparing health insurance to car insurance. That doesn't work, because you really do not have to have a car. You don't really have much of a choice when it comes to just living. If you don't feel like paying car insurance, and you want to remain legal, you can take the bus, or ride a bike. If you can afford health insurance, but for some reason you don't want to buy it, there isn't anything you can give up. Its sort of like a "living tax".

But your comparing the results of being hit by an uninsured driver (assuming you are dumb enough not to purchase uninsured motorist coverage which is usually about $15), is good, and that's why I love this mandate. President Obama explained it perfectly and logically in his speech last week. This will keep more people from amassing medical bills the state has to pay for.

Edited July 1, 2012 by dalegg

[Pooky 3,784]

That would fall under denial of pre-existing conditions and against the law.

Ummm, no, it doesn't. It's a global coverage exclusion. No-one is covered for obesity-related medical conditions.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Both health care legislations have an individual mandate - which makes Romney look like a fool to even be pretending like he's against the ACA.

Have you read Romney's health care proposal? It's on his website. It basically calls for the states to write their own health care laws, like the one he signed in Massachusetts, and for the federal government to provide the states some assistance in covering low income and indigent. His argument against the mandate is the same as most people's - the federal government doesn't have the authority to require you to buy any private product or service. The Constitution is clear that any authority not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. The state of Massachusetts crafted a workable law that allows insurance companies to mitigate risk, and provides an alternative for people who have been priced out of the market. Other states can do the same.

There's nothing conflicting in Romney's objections to the ACA.

Also, a public option was something that Obama fought hard for, but thanks to the Republicans, he couldn't get it passed if there was a public option.

Bull. Not one Republican voted for the ACA. That would not have been any different if there had been a public option. It was Democrats who refused to vote for the bill if it included a public option. Do your research.

All those provisions you mentioned - like ACA preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions are what makes the ACA good healthcare reform.

And no, it won't be the demise to the insurance companies, but if it did, that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The idea that people can or should profit from those who need medical treatment is preposterous.

You can't pile ever increasing risk on insurance companies without them raising their premiums. Many healthy people are going to opt out and pay the tax since it's substantially lower than the cost of health insurance. They have absolutely nothing to lose by doing this because the law allows them to reenter the insurance market when they get sick, and the insurance companies can't deny them for preexisting conditions. That's going to raise the ratio of sick clients vs. healthy clients which the insurance companies have to cover, and they're going to raise their rates as a result. The higher rates are going to drive even more healthy people to opt for the tax instead, which is going to result in even higher rates. This cycle is going to feed on itself until the majority of people buying insurance are also receiving expensive health care services. A bubble like that must eventually burst. When it does, people will be screaming at Congress to fix it.

Don't worry. After the private health insurance industry has collapsed, and the health care industry has been gutted, you'll finally get a single payer system. That is, after all, what Obama has always said he really wanted, and what I believe this law was crafted to ultimately result in.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ummm, no, it doesn't. It's a global coverage exclusion. No-one is covered for obesity-related medical conditions.

Not under the ACA. Diabetes and hypertension can be consequences of obesity and a person cannot be denied coverage. Are you talking about other non-threatening medical conditions like erectile dysfunction?

[Dakine10 5,452]

You can't pile ever increasing risk on insurance companies without them raising their premiums. Many healthy people are going to opt out and pay the tax since it's substantially lower than the cost of health insurance. They have absolutely nothing to lose by doing this because the law allows them to reenter the insurance market when they get sick, and the insurance companies can't deny them for preexisting conditions. That's going to raise the ratio of sick clients vs. healthy clients which the insurance companies have to cover, and they're going to raise their rates as a result. The higher rates are going to drive even more healthy people to opt for the tax instead, which is going to result in even higher rates. This cycle is going to feed on itself until the majority of people buying insurance are also receiving expensive health care services. A bubble like that must eventually burst. When it does, people will be screaming at Congress to fix it.

Don't worry. After the private health insurance industry has collapsed, and the health care industry has been gutted, you'll finally get a single payer system. That is, after all, what Obama has always said he really wanted, and what I believe this law was crafted to ultimately result in.

Unless you have a heart attack or stroke or something. The insurance company can't deny you for preexisting conditions, but they're not going to cover retroactively either. You can be $100,000 in debt before you can even fill out the insurance paperwork.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's two problems with these statements. First of all, if the individual mandate truly is toothless, then we have a serious problem. The healthcare proposal is relying in part on more participation by those who can afford to buy insurance that currently aren't for funding. If we can't count on that revenue, then this is going to cost us even more than we thought. But the idea that the government won't try to collect taxes that are owed them is to me ludicrus. As we have seen, its all in the way you interpret the law. If nothing else, people who decide they don't want to pay are going to at least have to hire good tax attorneys to avoid being harrassed by the IRS.

The second problem is with comparing health insurance to car insurance. That doesn't work, because you really do not have to have a car. You don't really have much of a choice when it comes to just living. If you don't feel like paying car insurance, and you want to remain legal, you can take the bus, or ride a bike. If you can afford health insurance, but for some reason you don't want to buy it, there isn't anything you can give up. Its sort of like a "living tax".

But your comparing the results of being hit by an uninsured driver (assuming you are dumb enough not to purchase uninsured motorist coverage which is usually about $15), is good, and that's why I love this mandate. President Obama explained it perfectly and logically in his speech last week. This will keep more people from amassing medical bills the state has to pay for.

I don't know exactly what happens if you don't pay the penalty, but from I've read from commentators is that there's no penalty for not paying the penalty. The IRS cannot use its normal collective powers to go after someone who hasn't paid the penalty.

While the comparison to car insurance mandate isn't exact, it is a fair comparison. We have mandatory insurance for those who drive because the cost is substantially more for those who are insured when others are not. Getting hit by an uninsured motorist is like when an alcoholic with uncontrolled diabetes and no medical insurance ends up spending 2 months in critical care because he didn't seek medical treatment. I see a lot of cases like that in the hospital where I work. One month in the ICU could easily run upward of half a million and that cost is passed on to you and me. So yeah, I don't understand the fuss people are having about being required to have medical insurance, because there is no guarantee that even if you live a healthy lifestyle and are a cautious person, that you might not end up with some kind of catastrophic condition and with no means to pay for treatment, which at some point is no longer optional.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have you read Romney's health care proposal? It's on his website. It basically calls for the states to write their own health care laws, like the one he signed in Massachusetts, and for the federal government to provide the states some assistance in covering low income and indigent. His argument against the mandate is the same as most people's - the federal government doesn't have the authority to require you to buy any private product or service. The Constitution is clear that any authority not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. The state of Massachusetts crafted a workable law that allows insurance companies to mitigate risk, and provides an alternative for people who have been priced out of the market. Other states can do the same.

There's nothing conflicting in Romney's objections to the ACA.

Oh no, not this again. Sigh - yes, that's what says in the Constitution, but it also says that Congress has the power to levy taxes and according to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Although you have a constitutional right to dispute that, that won't change the fact that ACA is constitutional in the eyes of our highest court in the land and is valid.

Bull. Not one Republican voted for the ACA. That would not have been any different if there had been a public option. It was Democrats who refused to vote for the bill if it included a public option. Do your research.

You're kidding yourself. Obama reach across the aisle in wanting healthcare reform. There were countless hours spent with Republicans in trying to come up with a compromise. Many of the provisions in the final bill were ideas either supported by Republicans or originated from them. That's why the ACA is something that just about everyone likes to complain about. It was a compromise, but a brilliant one, IMO.

But in case you really think the Republicans had no input as to whether the final bill would contain a public option:

Don't expect a Republican change of heart on government-run health insurance any time soon.

Even though several less sweeping versions of the public option are gaining steam on Capitol Hill, potentially providing an opening for GOP lawmakers to bargain for the least offensive, party leaders are sending a message: Not impressed.

"At the end of the day, it's a government-run plan," one Republican aide told Foxnews.com.

The unyielding resistance ensures that Republicans will keep health care reform complaints in their arsenal for the 2010 elections and beyond.

At the same time, they run the risk of reinforcing their image among critics as the "Party of No." And should health care reform pass, experience no significant cost overruns or bureaucratic fumbles, and be enormously popular, the Republican Party will effectively be on the losing team.

But Republicans see any of these plans as a bureaucratic monster guaranteed to drive up already ghastly deficits and burden Americans with new taxes. They claim to have the wind at their backs, arguing that the upcoming Virginia governor's race -- where Republican Bob McDonnell leads the polls -- is a "cautionary tale" to Democrats ahead of the 2010 elections and a sign of the angst directed at the incumbent party in Washington.

"We're going to offer alternatives. ... and that will be important going into next year's election," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told ABC's "This Week."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1zOlsyujQ

[MyLittlePony 340]

I see a tax hike coming because of healthcare reform.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Oh no, not this again. Sigh - yes, that's what says in the Constitution, but it also says that Congress has the power to levy taxes and according to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Although you have a constitutional right to dispute that, that won't change the fact that ACA is constitutional in the eyes of our highest court in the land and is valid.

Are you seriously trying to frame Romney's objection to the mandate around Justice Robert's opinion? Romney stated his objections to the mandate two years before Justice Robert issued his opinion. Nobody in either Congress or the administration even implied that the penalty was, in fact, a tax until Donald Verrilli made his oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court, and that was one day after insisting that it wasn't a tax but a penalty permitted under the interstate commerce clause. Members of Congress insisted the penalty wasn't a tax when they passed the law in 2010. President Obama stated emphatically that it wasn't a tax. On the day that the Supreme Court decision was issued nobody except Justice Roberts conceded that the penalty was a tax. The four liberal justices all believed the mandate was allowed by the interstate commerce clause. The four conservative justices all thought Justice Roberts was rewriting the law in his head in order to make the tax argument fit, rather than reading the law the way it was written. The law, by the way, doesn't mention the word "tax".

Nobody expected the justification that Justice Roberts gave for upholding the mandate. You can't retroactively hang that around Romney's neck.

You're kidding yourself. Obama reach across the aisle in wanting healthcare reform. There were countless hours spent with Republicans in trying to come up with a compromise. Many of the provisions in the final bill were ideas either supported by Republicans or originated from them. That's why the ACA is something that just about everyone likes to complain about. It was a compromise, but a brilliant one, IMO.

But in case you really think the Republicans had no input as to whether the final bill would contain a public option:

The public option could not have been included in the final bill because the House didn't have the luxury of being able to amend the bill. They had to vote on the bill that was originally passed by the Senate before Senator Kennedy died. If they amended the bill then it would have had to go back to the Senate for debate, and newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown had promised to vote with his fellow Republicans to filibuster the bill and prevent it from being passed.

You get that? The people of Massachusetts - the same state where Romney's health care reform law was enacted - voted for a Republican because he campaigned on the fact that he would be the one extra vote needed to defeat the ACA in the Senate. His campaign slogan was "Brown 41". Even the people of Massachusetts didn't want this bill to become law.

Democrats assured the American public that there would be a public option included in the accompanying budget bill because that bill could be passed using a procedure called reconciliation, that required only a simple majority in the Senate. They only needed 50 Senate Democrats to vote for it, and there were 58 Democrats (and one independent who usually voted with the Democrats) in the Senate. When it came time to draft the budget bill, all of a sudden, they didn't have the 50 votes in the Senate that they claimed all along that they had. In fact, they barely had 41 votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/11/the-public-options-last-s_n_495383.html

The fact is that if the reconciliation bill had contained a public option, and if it had come up for a vote in the Senate, then there's a good chance the 50 votes would have been there. This would have put Senate Democrats on the hot seat to declare publicly whether they actually supported something which they claimed all along that they supported. ####### Durbin (Democratic Majority Whip, at the time) didn't want to see the Democrats publicly humiliated like that, so he actually whipped against the public option.

The truth is that the Democrats had already made back room deals with the insurance companies, who were adamantly opposed to competing with the government for clients. They publicly claimed they supported the public option, but never realistically believed they'd be forced to vote on it because they knew that they didn't have a filibuster proof majority, and nobody honestly believed the reconciliation process would be used. The list of waffling Democratic Senators is in the Huffington Post article linked above.

[Xanax 349]

I believe people "can't just join again when they are sick" because there will be waiting periods to prevent people from doing just that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you seriously trying to frame Romney's objection to the mandate around Justice Robert's opinion? Romney stated his objections to the mandate two years before Justice Robert issued his opinion. Nobody in either Congress or the administration even implied that the penalty was, in fact, a tax until Donald Verrilli made his oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court, and that was one day after insisting that it wasn't a tax but a penalty permitted under the interstate commerce clause. Members of Congress insisted the penalty wasn't a tax when they passed the law in 2010. President Obama stated emphatically that it wasn't a tax. On the day that the Supreme Court decision was issued nobody except Justice Roberts conceded that the penalty was a tax. The four liberal justices all believed the mandate was allowed by the interstate commerce clause. The four conservative justices all thought Justice Roberts was rewriting the law in his head in order to make the tax argument fit, rather than reading the law the way it was written. The law, by the way, doesn't mention the word "tax".

Nobody expected the justification that Justice Roberts gave for upholding the mandate. You can't retroactively hang that around Romney's neck.

Listen to Romney himself from 2006, when he first introduced the individual mandate at Heritage:

Pay close attention to his explanation of how it will be enforced.

The public option could not have been included in the final bill because the House didn't have the luxury of being able to amend the bill. They had to vote on the bill that was originally passed by the Senate before Senator Kennedy died. If they amended the bill then it would have had to go back to the Senate for debate, and newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown had promised to vote with his fellow Republicans to filibuster the bill and prevent it from being passed.

You get that? The people of Massachusetts - the same state where Romney's health care reform law was enacted - voted for a Republican because he campaigned on the fact that he would be the one extra vote needed to defeat the ACA in the Senate. His campaign slogan was "Brown 41". Even the people of Massachusetts didn't want this bill to become law.

Democrats assured the American public that there would be a public option included in the accompanying budget bill because that bill could be passed using a procedure called reconciliation, that required only a simple majority in the Senate. They only needed 50 Senate Democrats to vote for it, and there were 58 Democrats (and one independent who usually voted with the Democrats) in the Senate. When it came time to draft the budget bill, all of a sudden, they didn't have the 50 votes in the Senate that they claimed all along that they had. In fact, they barely had 41 votes.

http://www.huffingto...s_n_495383.html

The fact is that if the reconciliation bill had contained a public option, and if it had come up for a vote in the Senate, then there's a good chance the 50 votes would have been there. This would have put Senate Democrats on the hot seat to declare publicly whether they actually supported something which they claimed all along that they supported. ####### Durbin (Democratic Majority Whip, at the time) didn't want to see the Democrats publicly humiliated like that, so he actually whipped against the public option.

The truth is that the Democrats had already made back room deals with the insurance companies, who were adamantly opposed to competing with the government for clients. They publicly claimed they supported the public option, but never realistically believed they'd be forced to vote on it because they knew that they didn't have a filibuster proof majority, and nobody honestly believed the reconciliation process would be used. The list of waffling Democratic Senators is in the Huffington Post article linked above.

Lets go back to why we're even talking about ACA not having a public option. You listed the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare which included the fact that Romneycare has a public option. And you were questioning why people keep making a comparison between the two healthcare laws because they are different. First, myself and another poster both stated that it is the individual mandate that was at the center of the constitutional challenge and the heart of why the Right Wingers have been griping about ACA ("We don't want no stinkin gubmint forcing us to buy insurance!"). Trying to split legal or ideological hairs over why an individual mandate is okay on a state level, but not on a federal level is just petty nonsense, because the heart of the argument against an individual mandate is that people "don't want no stinkin gubmint telling them what to buy." Again, listen to the above explanation by Romney himself about an individual mandate.

You seem caught up in the nitty-gritty details of why the ACA has no public option while ignoring the bigger reasons why. The Republicans were and have been adamantly opposed to a public option (gubmint run healthcare) all along. When the Obama Administration first set out to reform healthcare, they knew that a public option would have to be off the table if they had any chance in a bill that would have bipartisan support. It was later on that the Obama Administration finally realized that the Republicans were so embittered over his presidency that they would not, by and large give any support behind whatever reforms he was proposing. Look back and read what transpired during those months of 'negotiations.' The GOP didn't earn the title, "The Party of No" for nothing. They've opposed the President on just about everything he's done or tried to do. And yes, amazingly enough, the Democrat Party actually has some conservative members of Congress, who often vote with Republicans and who were unsurprisingly opposed to a public option.

[^_^ 5,021]

You seem caught up in the nitty-gritty details of why the ACA has no public option while ignoring the bigger reasons why. The Republicans were and have been adamantly opposed to a public option (gubmint run healthcare) all along. When the Obama Administration first set out to reform healthcare, they knew that a public option would have to be off the table if they had any chance in a bill that would have bipartisan support. It was later on that the Obama Administration finally realized that the Republicans were so embittered over his presidency that they would not, by and large give any support behind whatever reforms he was proposing. Look back and read what transpired during those months of 'negotiations.' The GOP didn't earn the title, "The Party of No" for nothing. They've opposed the President on just about everything he's done or tried to do. And yes, amazingly enough, the Democrat Party actually has some conservative members of Congress, who often vote with Republicans and who were unsurprisingly opposed to a public option.

I haven't read the last few days of posts (and don't plan to) but the real reason there is no public option is because the Democratic "majority" had blue dog conservatives who would not stand for it. Absent their support, the Administration made some attempts to "get" moderate republicans (like snowe) but failed. That is secondary though, the primary problem was people like Lieberman and Nelson and Blue Dogs in general.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I haven't read the last few days of posts (and don't plan to) but the real reason there is no public option is because the Democratic "majority" had blue dog conservatives who would not stand for it. Absent their support, the Administration made some attempts to "get" moderate republicans (like snowe) but failed. That is secondary though, the primary problem was people like Lieberman and Nelson and Blue Dogs in general.

Yes. The problems with the bill can be directly related to the reality of the Senate, that even a Democratic President cannot control a Democratic majority Senate.

ETA: Unless you are Bill Clinton, and have a bevy of willing interns.

Edited July 2, 2012 by ☼

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I haven't read the last few days of posts (and don't plan to) but the real reason there is no public option is because the Democratic "majority" had blue dog conservatives who would not stand for it. Absent their support, the Administration made some attempts to "get" moderate republicans (like snowe) but failed. That is secondary though, the primary problem was people like Lieberman and Nelson and Blue Dogs in general.

When the Social Security Act was voted on in 1935, 81 Republicans in the House voted yes as well as 16 Senators. The SSA is arguably, one of most aggressive expansions of Federal Gov't, at least in the eyes of modern Republicans and yet the vote didn't go squarely along party lines.

Just because the modern Republican Party has become so extreme and partisan doesn't deflect the fact that it is that level of partisanship which has obstructed anything like a public option from ever reaching a vote. Sure, the Democratic Party has conservatives, but I wouldn't solely blame them. There are no moderate or liberal Republicans in Washington who have the courage to vote against party lines because they know what kind of wrath will be unleashed against them by their own party. This is the era of the Rethuglicans.