What do you ALL think about OBAMACARE?

[Dakine10 5,452]

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.

You're correct about State vs federal, however Romney was specifically asked whether he liked the mandates on a national basis.

I'll admit it's hard to know Romney's position at any given point in time. If you searched for Mitt and flip flop on google a year ago, you mostly got hits for gloves and footwear. That's not the case anymore.

Here's the actual question:

Charlie Gibson: "Governor Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis."

Mitt Romney: "No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work."

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Here's the actual question:

Charlie Gibson: "Governor Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis."

Mitt Romney: "No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work."

About two minutes later, in the same debate:

Gibson: We have an expression in television: We get in the weeds. We’re in the weeds now on this. .  .  . Yes or no, in your national plan, would you mandate people to get insurance? .  .  .

Romney: I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what we do. But what I would say at the federal level is, “We’ll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured.” I want to get everybody insured.

[Dakine10 5,452]

About two minutes later, in the same debate:

Gibson: We have an expression in television: We get in the weeds. We’re in the weeds now on this. .  .  . Yes or no, in your national plan, would you mandate people to get insurance? .  .  .

Romney: I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what we do. But what I would say at the federal level is, “We’ll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured.” I want to get everybody insured.

Yeah, you can certainly see how he got his nickname.

So basically withold federal funding unless states' figure out how to get everyone covered. Is that more in line with the constitution? Just force states to make their own mandates? Because that's what would happen.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Dakine10

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

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.

That's an over simplistic approach to the wording without giving any credence to its context or intention. The intention or origin of the 10th Amendment was not to add anything to the Constitution but to declare a truth that whatever legislation not enacted by Congress, such authority then falls to the States.

History suggests that the 10th amendment was not meant to measure the extent of federal power. When debating the 10th Amendment, both Houses of Congress refused to insert the word "expressly" before "delegated."

The founders thus rejected an amendment that would grant the states all power not "expressly delegated to the United States."

But if this is true, why are people invoking the 10th Amendment when speaking about states' rights? Why do they claim that the 10th Amendment limits federal power?

What they are actually saying is that the Constitution does give the federal government the power to take a disputed action. Because Congress can't act, states are entitled to such power under the 10th Amendment.

Therefore, those who invoke the 10th Amendment mean to say that Congress has no legal authority to act. It's only in a roundabout way that the 10th Amendment supports states' rights.

http://blogs.findlaw...-amendment.html

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.

Well, this has been ongoing argument going back to Hamilton and Madison. It's really an exaggeration to imagine that any sort of mandatory participation by government is a force because there are no legal references or comparisons to law which forces its citizens to participate in anything. Your child, for example, might say you force him to eat his vegetables, but in reality, unless you physically are force feeding him vegetables, he's just being melodramatic as to why he can't have dessert until he eats his vegetables. So, yes, I would agree that the federal government has no constitutional authority to force us to do anything, but it certainly has the authority require participation and set up consequences for not participating, provided our civil rights remain intact. That's why Roberts identified it as a tax and not some literal mandate where the government grabs your neck and pushes you into a health insurance office, forcing your hand to sign up.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Yeah, you can certainly see how he got his nickname.

No, he clarified his point. He obviously thinks mandates at the state level are a good idea because he signed a law that included one in Massachusetts. He doesn't believe the federal government has the authority to do this. If you insist on taking one sound bite out of context then we can also discuss "The private sector is doing fine".

So basically withold federal funding unless states' figure out how to get everyone covered. Is that more in line with the constitution? Just force states to make their own mandates? Because that's what would happen.

Those "special funds" are to help states provide subsidies to the working poor so that they can afford insurance. It's money the states aren't getting now. It would be pointless for the federal government to encourage states to adopt laws that seek to get everyone covered without offering to help states pay for it. That was the huge problem with the Health Reform Act of 1986 - it prohibited ambulance and hospital emergency rooms from denying care based on someone's ability to pay, but didn't provide any funds to cover the people who couldn't pay.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That's an over simplistic approach to the wording without giving any credence to its context or intention. The intention or origin of the 10th Amendment was not to add anything to the Constitution but to declare a truth that whatever legislation not enacted by Congress, such authority then falls to the States.

I'll have to get back to this later. The article you linked depends heavily on another article at FindLaw, and that article depends heavily on the Constitutional debates in Congress. The third footnote refers to the Annals of Congress, 1789, but the pages it refers to have to do with debate about an amendment that would require congressional representatives to follow the instructions of their constituents when voting. I'm presuming the page numbers it gave were a mistake, so I'm reading the entire Annals for that week. This is going to take a while.

[웃 910]

GET A ROOM!!!

[RobbyUSA 26]

I am a free-loader and don't work.

so I am all for OBAMACARE.

if I was rich and had a good job, I would be against it.

so it's good for some and bad for others.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I am a free-loader and don't work.

so I am all for OBAMACARE.

if I was rich and had a good job, I would be against it.

so it's good for some and bad for others.

I have a good job and I am for it. I would be against it if they repealed the law mandating hospitals to provide care to all, regardless of their ability to pay their bills.

As it stands, hospitals have no choice but to care for anyone who shows up and it is time some of those people started paying for their own health care.

It is bad news for free-loaders.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have a good job and I am for it. I would be against it if they repealed the law mandating hospitals to provide care to all, regardless of their ability to pay their bills.

As it stands, hospitals have no choice but to care for anyone who shows up and it is time some of those people started paying for their own health care.

It is bad news for free-loaders.

Exactly.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I have a good job and I am for it. I would be against it if they repealed the law mandating hospitals to provide care to all, regardless of their ability to pay their bills.

As it stands, hospitals have no choice but to care for anyone who shows up and it is time some of those people started paying for their own health care.

It is bad news for free-loaders.

I think you guys misunderstand that law. It requires ambulances and emergency rooms to provide service to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. It doesn't require ambulances and hospitals to provide free care. If you're truly poor then you'll probably qualify for emergency Medicaid. Everyone else who shows up in a emergency room without insurance is going to get billed for the service. The hospital will make a limited attempt to collect and then they'll sell the account to a collection agency. Any losses are passed on to paying patients in the form of higher costs. Obamacare won't change that.

When the mandate kicks in then a portion of those "free-loaders" are going to be eligible for Medicaid. You'll be paying for their medical care with your taxes instead of your insurance premiums. The working poor who aren't eligible for Medicaid will either get a subsidy to buy insurance - again, paid for with your taxes - or they'll opt to pay the penalty instead, which means their emergency room treatment will be handled the same way it's handled now. Nothing will change for over 12 million illegal aliens. They won't get Medicaid, and they won't have insurance. Obamacare specifically excludes illegals from any benefits, but it doesn't change the law that requires hospitals to treat them.

Frankly, I'm a little mystified by this attitude about so-called "free-loaders". Do you really think that someone who can actually afford to buy insurance would prefer to use a hospital emergency room for primary care? I don't know about the hospitals where you live, but if you go to a hospital emergency room where I live and you aren't a real emergency then you'll be waiting for many hours before you'll be seen by a doctor. Most of the people who are willing to tolerate this have no choice. They simply can't afford to buy insurance. The mandate isn't going to change that.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think you guys misunderstand that law. It requires ambulances and emergency rooms to provide service to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay. It doesn't require ambulances and hospitals to provide free care. If you're truly poor then you'll probably qualify for emergency Medicaid. Everyone else who shows up in a emergency room without insurance is going to get billed for the service. The hospital will make a limited attempt to collect and then they'll sell the account to a collection agency. Any losses are passed on to paying patients in the form of higher costs. Obamacare won't change that.

When the mandate kicks in then a portion of those "free-loaders" are going to be eligible for Medicaid. You'll be paying for their medical care with your taxes instead of your insurance premiums. The working poor who aren't eligible for Medicaid will either get a subsidy to buy insurance - again, paid for with your taxes - or they'll opt to pay the penalty instead, which means their emergency room treatment will be handled the same way it's handled now. Nothing will change for over 12 million illegal aliens. They won't get Medicaid, and they won't have insurance. Obamacare specifically excludes illegals from any benefits, but it doesn't change the law that requires hospitals to treat them.

Frankly, I'm a little mystified by this attitude about so-called "free-loaders". Do you really think that someone who can actually afford to buy insurance would prefer to use a hospital emergency room for primary care? I don't know about the hospitals where you live, but if you go to a hospital emergency room where I live and you aren't a real emergency then you'll be waiting for many hours before you'll be seen by a doctor. Most of the people who are willing to tolerate this have no choice. They simply can't afford to buy insurance. The mandate isn't going to change that.

From what you say, there seems nothing much - if anything at all - will change, which means that the Health Care Reform kerfuffle being brewed by some is just something they can concentrate on instead of doing the work for which they were elected.

It seems then that the nay-saying is purely partisan...

Edited July 5, 2012 by Gegel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Frankly, I'm a little mystified by this attitude about so-called "free-loaders". Do you really think that someone who can actually afford to buy insurance would prefer to use a hospital emergency room for primary care?

No. But too many of the invincible sooner or later find out that they're not. And they find out at my expense. I'd rather they take personal responsibility and cover for that eventuality. I'm perfectly fine with people paying for their regular primary care out of pocket and have coverage for major expenses only - High Deductible Plans are available and inexpensive. There's really no reason for anyone with any sense of personal responsibility not to have one.