What do you ALL think about OBAMACARE?

[^_^ 5,021]

nevrmind.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Habitual Offender

[Captain Oates 911]

I don't like the government telling me where I can go for health care, let alone fine me, what about all the illegals getting benefits on my tax dollar? Perhaps the immigration law should be unforced! They cost us taxpayers billions a year in services, while the elderly and veterans get the shaft, now us?

Fox garbage

The new law does not tell anyone where to go for health care

It does however require every parent of a 15 year old girl to hand them over for Obama's pleasure every Halloween (mrs obama)

Wanna buy a bridge ?

[X Factor 1,112]

Some are calling it "Castro care"

[Captain Oates 911]

Some are calling it "Castro care"

Does that mean Obama is really from Cuba ?

Is there a birth certificate from Havana ?

Does that mean he is a Kenyan born in Cuba with a falsified Hawaiian certificate

How dare he come here and try and help the sick and save them from financial ruin !

That is SO un-christian

That is So un-American !

Only a foreigner would try and do that

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

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.

How does this in any way conflict with what I've said, or what Romney has said about his opposition to the mandate in Obamacare?

Let me repeat this one more time, in case you missed it. Romney's opposition to the mandate in Obamacare is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not have the authority to force anybody to buy anything under the Constitution. That means that only the STATES have that authority.

One more time, go to Romney's website and read his proposal for health care reform. First and foremost, he believes that states should be writing their own laws, which is precisely what he did in Massachusetts. At no time has he ever questioned a state's right to mandate that people have insurance.

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.

Geez, now it's the Republican's fault because they would have stopped it if they could have?

The Republicans were powerless to stop any of it. The President knew this. The Democrats in the House and Senate knew this. By voting on the bill that passed when Kennedy was in the Senate, and using the reconciliation process for the subsequent budget bill, they completely removed any chance for the Republicans to have any affect whatever on the outcome. The Republicans might as well have gone home because they couldn't do a thing about it.

When the House was debating the budget bill they dropped the public option because many of the Senate Democrats who had previously supported it had backed out. Republicans had no say in the matter. They were effectively shut out. It doesn't matter one iota what the Republicans would have done if they could have, because they couldn't do anything. What we've got was put together entirely by the Democrats.

As far as why the ACA is different from the Massachusetts law, the public option is a critical safety net in the Massachusetts law. Their law doesn't impose the same severe restrictions on private insurance companies that Obamacare does. The Massachusetts law allows private insurance companies to continue to use the methods they've always used to mitigate their risk and control the rise of premiums. This means a chronically sick person without insurance could find themselves priced out of the market, even though they had income. The Massachusetts law provides low cost subsidized alternatives, and forgives the penalty for someone who can't obtain affordable insurance. By contrast, Obamacare doesn't provide any low cost alternatives, forces private insurance companies to cover anyone, removes many of methods private insurance companies use to manage their risk, and imposes the penalty on anybody who doesn't buy insurance and isn't dirt poor.

The Massachusetts law works. A federal version of the Massachusetts law would work, even if you have to use the taxing authority of federal government in order to make it Constitutional. The law, as currently written, will destroy private insurance companies.

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

How does this in any way conflict with what I've said, or what Romney has said about his opposition to the mandate in Obamacare?

Let me repeat this one more time, in case you missed it. Romney's opposition to the mandate in Obamacare is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not have the authority to force anybody to buy anything under the Constitution. That means that only the STATES have that authority.

One more time, go to Romney's website and read his proposal for health care reform. First and foremost, he believes that states should be writing their own laws, which is precisely what he did in Massachusetts. At no time has he ever questioned a state's right to mandate that people have insurance.

That may be Romney's argument but that's like arguing that scrambled goose eggs are not really scrambled eggs because they didn't come from chickens.

I also understand that Right Wingers like to use the 10th Amendment as some kind of shield against Federalism, but it's really a red herring. The power left to states wasn't meant as some dictate to prevent the Federal government from exercising its authority but rather a declaration that whatever federal laws that don't encompass or cover are left up to states to legislate. Even Justice Scalia tried his hand at Right Wing soundbites by bringing up broccoli during oral arguments. I would understand if Romney actually believed that healthcare is exclusively under the jurisdiction of states but I'm not buying it. He knows that healthcare is well within interstate commerce - he has to know that as a former Governor. So trying to argue that an individual mandate (i.e. Big Gubmint) is bad, but a state imposed mandate (i.e. Little Gubmint) is good government enforcement is feeble logic.

Here's a good explanation of what the 10th Amendment means and doesn't mean:

Federal Regulations Affecting State Activities and Instrumentalities .--Since the mid-1970s, the Court has been closely divided over whether the Tenth Amendment or related constitutional doctrine constrains congressional authority to subject state activities and instrumentalities to generally applicable requirements enacted pursuant to the commerce power. 45 Under Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 46 the Court's most recent ruling directly on point, the Tenth Amendment imposes practically no judicially enforceable limit on generally applicable federal legislation, and states must look to the political process for redress. Garcia, however, like National League of Cities v. Usery, 47 the case it overruled, was a 5-4 decision, and there are recent indications that the Court may be ready to resurrect some form of Tenth Amendment constraint on Congress.

In National League of Cities v. Usery, the Court conceded that the legislation under attack, which regulated the wages and hours of certain state and local governmental employees, was ''undoubtedly within the scope of the Commerce Clause,'' 48 but it cautioned that ''there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.'' 49 The Court approached but did not reach the conclusion that the Tenth Amendment was the prohibition here, not that it directly interdicted federal power because power which is delegated is not reserved, but that it implicitly embodied a policy against impairing the States' integrity or ability to function. 50 But, in the end, the Court held that the legislation was invalid, not because it violated a prohibition found in the Tenth Amendment or elsewhere, but because the law was ''not within the authority granted Congress.'' 51 In subsequent cases applying or distinguishing National League of Cities, the Court and dissenters wrote as if the Tenth Amendment was the prohibition. 52 Whatever the source of the constraint, it was held not to limit the exercise of power under the Reconstruction Amendments. 53

http://caselaw.lp.fi...ent10/02.html#4

While this is an ideological divide among Right Wingers and the rest of us, again, I don't buy that Romney really believes that the healthcare is exclusively a state right. If he REALLY did believe that, he'd challenge the constitutionality of Medicaid and Medicare.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That may be Romney's argument but that's like arguing that scrambled goose eggs are not really scrambled eggs because they didn't come from chickens.

I also understand that Right Wingers like to use the 10th Amendment as some kind of shield against Federalism, but it's really a red herring. The power left to states wasn't meant as some dictate to prevent the Federal government from exercising its authority but rather a declaration that whatever federal laws that don't encompass or cover are left up to states to legislate. Even Justice Scalia tried his hand at Right Wing soundbites by bringing up broccoli during oral arguments. I would understand if Romney actually believed that healthcare is exclusively under the jurisdiction of states but I'm not buying it. He knows that healthcare is well within interstate commerce - he has to know that as a former Governor. So trying to argue that an individual mandate (i.e. Big Gubmint) is bad, but a state imposed mandate (i.e. Little Gubmint) is good government enforcement is feeble logic.

Here's a good explanation of what the 10th Amendment means and doesn't mean:

http://caselaw.lp.fi...ent10/02.html#4

How about we just look at the amendment itself?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How do you extrapolate from this that "whatever federal laws that don't encompass or cover are left up to states to legislate"? That is, quite clearly, NOT what the 10th amendment says. It doesn't say the states get any leftovers not grabbed by the federal government. It says the federal government gets only what power is specifically granted to it by the Constitution, and everything else is reserved for the states (or the people) unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from getting it. It couldn't possibly be any more clear. The federal government can't claim any authority not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The states get all authority not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, and not prohibited to them by the Constitution.

You keep bringing up points I've already addressed. Nobody is questioning whether the federal government has the authority to regulate health care. They clearly have that authority. What is questioned is whether the authority to regulate interstate commerce extends to requiring someone to participate in interstate commerce, or make them pay a penalty or "tax" if they don't. Even Justice Roberts couldn't bring himself to say that the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the authority to mandate people buy insurance. He had to come at it from another angle and say that the 16th amendment allows the federal government to levy a tax on individual income, and if the feds want to tax you for not buying insurance then so be it. Five of the nine justices agreed on this point - the mandate is not Constitutional under the interstate commerce clause. Had the issue been decided solely on that ground then it would have been struck down.

While this is an ideological divide among Right Wingers and the rest of us, again, I don't buy that Romney really believes that the healthcare is exclusively a state right. If he REALLY did believe that, he'd challenge the constitutionality of Medicaid and Medicare.

Hardly. Medicaid and Medicare are tax funded public programs. They've never masqueraded as anything else. It would be an entirely different issue if those programs were run by a private company and everyone were required by the federal government to participate.

Again, go read Romney's proposals.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.

...

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.

Read the bullet points on that page. It reads like a federal prescription for enabling states to do what Massachusetts did.

[Dakine10 5,452]

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

How does this in any way conflict with what I've said, or what Romney has said about his opposition to the mandate in Obamacare?

You gentlemen both make eloquent arguments. Have you ever considered the possibility that you both may be right? It is Mitt Romney you're talking about after all!

Mitt Romney Flip Flops

#8

Flip 8: I like mandates. The mandates work.

(reference)

Flop 8: I think its unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.

(reference)

Edited July 3, 2012 by Dakine10

[X Factor 1,112]

[^_^ 5,021]

Why is every response from you a picture?

Are you capable of words?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, go read Romney's proposals.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.

...

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.

Read the bullet points on that page. It reads like a federal prescription for enabling states to do what Massachusetts did.

Massachusetts did it before PPACA and any other state could have done the same. In fact, they still can. Vermont is going to introduce a single payer system - all fine under PPACA. What is Mitt really proposing? Forcing all states to do what MA did? How does that give states more option than they have under PPACA? Short answer is, it doesn't.

[Captain Oates 911]

Superb pic

A picture is worth a thousand words

I have sent it to the biggest reactionary I know

He will probably have stroke

Hope he has insurance

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Massachusetts did it before PPACA and any other state could have done the same. In fact, they still can. Vermont is going to introduce a single payer system - all fine under PPACA. What is Mitt really proposing? Forcing all states to do what MA did? How does that give states more option than they have under PPACA? Short answer is, it doesn't.

He doesn't want to force states to do anything. He wants to help them do it themselves. An insurance mandate is popular in some states and unpopular in other states. Fine. Let each state determine whether it wants to impose a mandate like Massachusetts did. Some states want to expand Medicaid to provide at least minimum coverage for people who aren't eligible under current federal regulations. Some states want to narrow eligibility to the neediest so that available Medicaid funds will cover more services. Fine. He wants to give block Medicaid grants to the states and reduce the federal regulations that dictate how the states distribute that money.

He wants to cap non-economic damages in malpractice suits. If you lose the ability to work because of medical malpractice then you'll still be compensated, but you won't become a millionaire from punitive damages. This will cut the cost of malpractice insurance, and lower health care costs.

He wants to allow pre-tax money people pay into their Health Savings Accounts to be available to pay health insurance premiums. This effectively allows you to deduct your insurance premiums even if your total unreimbursed medical expenses don't exceed 7.5% of your income to qualify for the regular tax deduction.

He wants people to be able to buy health insurance from any insurance company in any state; i.e., across state lines.

The only restriction he wants to impose on insurance companies is that they have to cover a preexisting condition if that condition was covered by your previous insurance company. Most states already require this.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You gentlemen both make eloquent arguments. Have you ever considered the possibility that you both may be right? It is Mitt Romney you're talking about after all!

Mitt Romney Flip Flops

#8

Flip 8: “I like mandates. The mandates work.”

(reference)

Flop 8: “I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.”

(reference)

STATE vs FEDERAL - there's a difference.

What MA does and what CA does are completely different.

When the FEDS do it it's bullshit and in direct violation of the 10th amendment.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

nevrmind.

By far one of your better post.