Constitutionality of Obamacare debate

[Thinine]

No, some places let you opt out of fire and/or police coverage. It's available everywhere, with obvious time constraints. Though I've never heard of optional policing, just fire fighting. Even then they'll save you and your family but let your house burn down.

[Talenos]

But again there is nothing mandated from the feds about providing it right? They just subsidize some of it.

[floor punching mummy]

No, some places let you opt out of fire and/or police coverage. It's available everywhere, with obvious time constraints.

in a lot of the mountain west, the time constraint is so large that the PD/FD would serve as little more than people to come pick up your dead body from the ashes.

[DTower5]

But again there is nothing mandated from the feds about providing it right? They just subsidize some of it.

Then we have a distinction without a difference, as their is no REAL mandate that one purchase health insurance, only a tax penalty if you choose not to buy

[Uncle Sherm]

But again there is nothing mandated from the feds about providing it right? They just subsidize some of it.

Then we have a distinction without a difference, as their is no REAL mandate that one purchase health insurance, only a tax penalty if you choose not to buy

There is no REAL mandate that one pay income taxes, only a bigger tax penalty and some jail time if you choose not to pay.

[DTower5]

But again there is nothing mandated from the feds about providing it right? They just subsidize some of it.

Then we have a distinction without a difference, as their is no REAL mandate that one purchase health insurance, only a tax penalty if you choose not to buy

There is no REAL mandate that one pay income taxes, only a bigger tax penalty and some jail time if you choose not to pay.

Do you see it as a penalty if you do not qualify for the home mortgage deduction or the child tax credit?

[Uncle Sherm]

But again there is nothing mandated from the feds about providing it right? They just subsidize some of it.

Then we have a distinction without a difference, as their is no REAL mandate that one purchase health insurance, only a tax penalty if you choose not to buy

There is no REAL mandate that one pay income taxes, only a bigger tax penalty and some jail time if you choose not to pay.

Do you see it as a penalty if you do not qualify for the home mortgage deduction or the child tax credit?

No. Deductions and credits are rewards for my doing something, not penalties for me not doing something. Even the lawyers aren't resorting to such convoluted lines of thinking. Everyone acknowledges that this is a tax penalty at best, including yourself, and a criminal fine at worst. This wasn't passed as a monthly tax hike with a "buy private health insurance" tax credit.

[DTower5]

But again there is nothing mandated from the feds about providing it right? They just subsidize some of it.

Then we have a distinction without a difference, as their is no REAL mandate that one purchase health insurance, only a tax penalty if you choose not to buy

There is no REAL mandate that one pay income taxes, only a bigger tax penalty and some jail time if you choose not to pay.

Do you see it as a penalty if you do not qualify for the home mortgage deduction or the child tax credit?

No. Deductions and credits are rewards for my doing something, not penalties for me not doing something. Even the lawyers aren't resorting to such convoluted lines of thinking. Everyone acknowledges that this is a tax penalty at best, including yourself, and a criminal fine at worst. This wasn't passed as a monthly tax hike with a "buy private health insurance" tax credit.

No, its not reliant on the distinction between punishment or reward, only that the taxing authority (clearly Constitutional) can be used in a schema for enforcement.
Lets take it step by step.

1. Is this Commerce?
a. Yes, it shows in every instance that this is commerce, and that the this fits the aggregate effect test. Health Insurance is 1/8 of the economy and spreads throughout the states.
2. Is this regulation of commerce?
a. Yes, this is a regulatory schema to reform health insurance on a national level
3. Are there any fundemental rights which would change the nature of the review from rational basis
a. None that I have seen - there are also no procedural due process or sub due process issues. So outside of a new fundemental right creation there is nothing present whcih would change the review.

Given all that, does this law rationally relate to the implied basis for the law as written... hard to argue that it doesn't

The necessary and proper clause gives broad powers to Congress to implement their schemas within the powers.

[Santa]

I don't think everyone should have to buy into healthcare but I do believe those retards like Sherm that don't want to buy in should have to sign their own death warrant so we can throw them in the dumpster when they need medical care.

The issue I have with Obamacare isn't its legality but its ridiculous pandering to insurance companies. Socialize the fucking system, get rid of private insurance, reduce costs.

[Uncle Sherm]

No, its not reliant on the distinction between punishment or reward, only that the taxing authority (clearly Constitutional) can be used in a schema for enforcement.
Lets take it step by step.

1. Is this Commerce?
a. Yes, it shows in every instance that this is commerce, and that the this fits the aggregate effect test. Health Insurance is 1/8 of the economy and spreads throughout the states.
2. Is this regulation of commerce?
a. Yes, this is a regulatory schema to reform health insurance on a national level
3. Are there any fundemental rights which would change the nature of the review from rational basis
a. None that I have seen - there are also no procedural due process or sub due process issues. So outside of a new fundemental right creation there is nothing present whcih would change the review.

Given all that, does this law rationally relate to the implied basis for the law as written... hard to argue that it doesn't

The necessary and proper clause gives broad powers to Congress to implement their schemas within the powers.

The problem is your first question, and is the basis for the objection to the law in the first place. Is buying health insurance commerce? Yes, but is not buying health insurance commerce? Can congress, even in the perverse interpretation you use of the regulating commerce among the several states clause, require individuals to engage in private commerce for the purpose of regulating it?

[Uncle Sherm]

I don't think everyone should have to buy into healthcare but I do believe those retards like Sherm that don't want to buy in should have to sign their own death warrant so we can throw them in the dumpster when they need medical care.

The issue I have with Obamacare isn't its legality but its ridiculous pandering to insurance companies. Socialize the fucking system, get rid of private insurance, reduce costs.

You can't reduce costs by creating a system where everyone gets free access to any service or product.

Insurance, private or public, is a middle man between you and your medical bill. Either you pay more to the insurance company than you would to your doctor, or the insurance company pays more to the doctor than than you pay to the insurance company. Someone is going to get the shaft there. I prefer to cut out the middle man, and pay the doctor directly. Socializing the system doesn't change the system, just means either you are paying more for health care in the form of taxes than you would in medical bills, or the government is losing money paying your bills for you. In either case, general population will end up paying more.

[Talenos]

They'll pay more and everyone will have coverage. Now we know that's something you don't want, but for other people, they see that as a plus.

[Uncle Sherm]

Everyone gets health care now, regardless of the ability to pay. I don't know where you go to see the doctor, but I've never had to pay cash up front. If you are worried that people will be ruined by catastrophic medical bills, fine. The federal government IS responsible for bankruptcy laws. Preventative shit is not that expensive, though, and should not be covered by insurance anyway.

[DTower5]

Does anyone have a seizure inducing graphic for Sherm?

[DTower5]

No, its not reliant on the distinction between punishment or reward, only that the taxing authority (clearly Constitutional) can be used in a schema for enforcement.
Lets take it step by step.

1. Is this Commerce?
a. Yes, it shows in every instance that this is commerce, and that the this fits the aggregate effect test. Health Insurance is 1/8 of the economy and spreads throughout the states.
2. Is this regulation of commerce?
a. Yes, this is a regulatory schema to reform health insurance on a national level
3. Are there any fundemental rights which would change the nature of the review from rational basis
a. None that I have seen - there are also no procedural due process or sub due process issues. So outside of a new fundemental right creation there is nothing present whcih would change the review.

Given all that, does this law rationally relate to the implied basis for the law as written... hard to argue that it doesn't

The necessary and proper clause gives broad powers to Congress to implement their schemas within the powers.

The problem is your first question, and is the basis for the objection to the law in the first place. Is buying health insurance commerce? Yes, but is not buying health insurance commerce? Can congress, even in the perverse interpretation you use of the regulating commerce among the several states clause, require individuals to engage in private commerce for the purpose of regulating it?

Yes, (See Wickard v Filburn and NOT growing wheat) - you are missing the aggegrate effects portion of the doctrine. If a significant fraction of the population are free riders, then their inaction (reguardless of reason) is affecting commerce and can be regulated.

[DTower5]

Everyone gets health care now, regardless of the ability to pay. I don't know where you go to see the doctor, but I've never had to pay cash up front. If you are worried that people will be ruined by catastrophic medical bills, fine. The federal government IS responsible for bankruptcy laws. Preventative shit is not that expensive, though, and should not be covered by insurance anyway.

Care to source any of those claims.... You are talking broadly about prevention services and making huge leaps about what is or is not expensive.

[DTower5]

I don't think everyone should have to buy into healthcare but I do believe those retards like Sherm that don't want to buy in should have to sign their own death warrant so we can throw them in the dumpster when they need medical care.

The issue I have with Obamacare isn't its legality but its ridiculous pandering to insurance companies. Socialize the fucking system, get rid of private insurance, reduce costs.

You can't reduce costs by creating a system where everyone gets free access to any service or product.

Insurance, private or public, is a middle man between you and your medical bill. Either you pay more to the insurance company than you would to your doctor, or the insurance company pays more to the doctor than than you pay to the insurance company. Someone is going to get the shaft there. I prefer to cut out the middle man, and pay the doctor directly. Socializing the system doesn't change the system, just means either you are paying more for health care in the form of taxes than you would in medical bills, or the government is losing money paying your bills for you. In either case, general population will end up paying more.

It's not free access, its subsidized access. You also assume that increasing access will also increase demand more than supply, and that is not a given. Look at people who already have "premium" health care access, do they use services just to do so - of course not, because people still only go to the Dr when they need something fixed.

You are living in a Bob Kelso full body scan test type of world, and that just doesn't exist for most people.

[Uncle Sherm]

It's not free access, its subsidized access. You also assume that increasing access will also increase demand more than supply, and that is not a given. Look at people who already have "premium" health care access, do they use services just to do so - of course not, because people still only go to the Dr when they need something fixed.

You are living in a Bob Kelso full body scan test type of world, and that just doesn't exist for most people.

Supply is fixed, unless this law mandates more doctors be created. Of course demand will increase more than supply.

Everyone gets health care now, regardless of the ability to pay. I don't know where you go to see the doctor, but I've never had to pay cash up front. If you are worried that people will be ruined by catastrophic medical bills, fine. The federal government IS responsible for bankruptcy laws. Preventative shit is not that expensive, though, and should not be covered by insurance anyway.

Care to source any of those claims.... You are talking broadly about prevention services and making huge leaps about what is or is not expensive.

You'll have to do your own research if you don't believe me. I go to two doctors, once for a routine physical checkup, another specialist for bloodwork and a new prescription. Total annual cost is under $300 for both doctor visits.

Yes, (See Wickard v Filburn and NOT growing wheat) - you are missing the aggegrate effects portion of the doctrine. If a significant fraction of the population are free riders, then their inaction (reguardless of reason) is affecting commerce and can be regulated.

It must be demonstrated that a significant portion are free riders. How much do health care costs increase for insurance policy holders because of people not paying their bills?

[Talenos]

I don't know where you go to see the doctor, but I've never had to pay cash up front.

I had to pay my copay before I could see my doctor.

[Gretyl]

Sounds like procedural prepayment rather than mandated.

[MarcusAurelius]

I don't think everyone should have to buy into healthcare but I do believe those retards like Sherm that don't want to buy in should have to sign their own death warrant so we can throw them in the dumpster when they need medical care.

The issue I have with Obamacare isn't its legality but its ridiculous pandering to insurance companies. Socialize the fucking system, get rid of private insurance, reduce costs.

it's a lot more fun for the democrats when they get to wave the flag of caring so deeply for those less fortunate while doing nothing that actually helps the poor while sucking off insurance corporations, increasing taxes, spending shittons of money, and painting the republicans as evil people that want to kill off the poor.

[Gretyl]

Sounds like you really want to vilify blind partisans. Have you heard of... pragmatism?

[Uncle Sherm]

$16 trillion in debt and growing $1 trillion every year does not get fixed with pragmatism.

[Gretyl]

You make it sound like I think the government we have now is eminently pragmatic.

[Uncle Sherm]

Compared to politics of the past, the government we have now is very pragmatic. I think we are currently living in the second Gilded Age.

[Gretyl]

CONFIRMED! upheld by SCOTUS. While the mandate would've been struck down solely under the commerce clause, it stands on a 5-4 ruling as a consequence of the taxing clause.

[Uncle Sherm]

Interesting argument, considering the "now it's a tax" originated in the Senate, contrary to the Constitutional requirement that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives.

Good Job, SCOTUS, now the people get to decide.

[Gretyl]

brb, recall vote on Roberts

[Uncle Sherm]

In other news, I can pick up chicks with my fake military decorations now.

[Talenos]

[MarcusAurelius]

[Gretyl]

So… basically Sherming it up? I can deal.

[MarkK]

lol, cnn.com makes me laugh a lot

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c3

[Uncle Sherm]

So… basically Sherming it up? I can deal.

Medium Dave responded to a post I made on CF's facebook wall, but I restrained myself.

My facebook wall may surprise you in its lack of political content.

[Gretyl]

link or gtfo

[Pokaris]

Anyone else think Roberts just wanted to see another lawyer get rich challenging this in 2014 when the first person gets "taxed"?

[THW]

I don't think that; I know that. He told me so. It was exactly why he did it.

[Jobu]

And the cut backs begin...

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Cedar-Fa ... 48751.html

[Uncle Sherm]

Nothing a little boost in federal funding can't fix.



FORWARD!

[Thinine]

The article basically says the workers were at 32 hours to avoid paying healthcare already, so a drop to 29 hours a weeks isn't that big. Either way they're getting fucked.

[Uncle Sherm]

3 hours a week at $10/hr isn't that big? What are your monthly bills?

[Thinine]

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

[MarcusAurelius]

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

if a system is designed with the sole purpose of helping workers and instead it results in those workers getting screwed, i'd say that absolutely means the system is bad.

i agree, universal health care would solve this problem. but i disagree that this shitty system should stay in place. it's a compromise between universal health care and no government health care that's simultaneously far shittier than either one.

[Uncle Sherm]

Medical bankruptcy reform would be the easiest and least controversial way to solve this "problem".

[Thinine]

Your "medical bankruptcy reform" isn't real Sherm, it's just something spouted by libertarians so they don't seem completely inhuman. Real reform would be UHC.

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

if a system is designed with the sole purpose of helping workers and instead it results in those workers getting screwed, i'd say that absolutely means the system is bad.

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that. If an employer is so dead set against ever providing health care for its workers that they'd rather hire more workers working fewer hours, there's not a lot the system can do.

i agree, universal health care would solve this problem. but i disagree that this shitty system should stay in place. it's a compromise between universal health care and no government health care that's simultaneously far shittier than either one.

No, it's far superior to the status quo, as millions more Americans will have health coverage because of it. That some continue to avert it is to be expected.

[Uncle Sherm]

Your "medical bankruptcy reform" isn't real Sherm, it's just something spouted by libertarians so they don't seem completely inhuman. Real reform would be UHC.

I don't have health insurance myself, and pay for a monthly prescription out of pocket. I don't care if people that want to "take care of me" think I'm inhuman. This issue is not about health CARE, it is about Health Insurance. Nobody is denied CARE now, so this is just a money issue between private parties. There is only so much the Federal Government can do when it comes to that, and bankruptcy laws are one of them.

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

if a system is designed with the sole purpose of helping workers and instead it results in those workers getting screwed, i'd say that absolutely means the system is bad.

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that. If an employer is so dead set against ever providing health care for its workers that they'd rather hire more workers working fewer hours, there's not a lot the system can do.

There's not a lot "they system" should do. It's a free country and private parties should therefore be free to make and disolve agreements on their own, with "the system" only intervening if one party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

i agree, universal health care would solve this problem. but i disagree that this shitty system should stay in place. it's a compromise between universal health care and no government health care that's simultaneously far shittier than either one.

No, it's far superior to the status quo, as millions more Americans will have health coverage because of it. That some continue to avert it is to be expected.

Millions more Americans will have to pay for the care of others. It is a mandatory middle man, which raises costs on everyone. A completely government run health care system would do the same thing, but with much more bureaucracy, no incentive to keep costs down, and more infringement on our liberties. Considering we are already $16,000,000,000,000,000+ in debt (when you can round to the nearest hundred billion dollars, you are talking about a lot of money), and spending levels are projected to put us at $20 trillion by 2016, the status quo is much, much better.

[MarcusAurelius]

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that.

what's the difference? a system that rewards employers for screwing workers isn't functionally different from a system that screws workers.

[Santa]

I'm pretty much with MA on this one, although I don't think ObamaCare is as severe of a burden as he does.

Save 30 percent on HealthCare as a nation by cutting out the insurance companies. Save massive HR bills for companies that no longer have to manage health plans.

Obamacare is just a hack of a solution. I do like a few of the stipulations, for instance, regarding pre-existing conditions but for the most part, it's the negatives of both socialism and capitalism all rolled up into one plan that's major success was only in pandering to special interests and lobbyists.

[MarcusAurelius]

I'm pretty much with MA on this one, although I don't think ObamaCare is as severe of a burden as he does.

in the grand scheme of current federal budgets, obamacare isn't all that expensive. i don't think it's a severe burden, i just think it's fucking retarded. take a look at some of the funding sources for it:

Summary of tax increases: (ten year projection)
Increase Medicare tax rate by .9% and impose added tax of 3.8% on unearned income for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Charge an annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
Impose a 40% excise tax on health insurance annual premiums in excess of $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family: $32 billion
Impose an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices:$20 billion
Raise the 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit annual contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion

with the arguable exception of the cadillac plan, all those bolded items are fucking insane. they're paying for health care by fucking increasing taxes on health care providers, and generally making health care more expensive than it was previously. how ass backwards do you have to be to think that's a good idea?

and what's the gain?

CBO originally estimated the legislation will reduce the number of uninsured residents by 30 million, leaving 25 million uninsured residents in 2019 after the bill's provisions have all taken effect.[196][197][198][199] A July 2012 CBO estimate raised the expected number of uninsured by 6 million, reflecting the successful legal challenge to PPACA's expansion of Medicaid.[200]

for all that effort and expense, the only thing we get out of it is about half those previously uninsured will be insured 7 years from now? fuck that. we got a system that's both expensive and doesn't accomplish it's goals. it takes some serious dissonance to think that's a good piece of legislation.

[Thinine]

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that.

what's the difference? a system that rewards employers for screwing workers isn't functionally different from a system that screws workers.

How are they rewarded? That it's still possible to skirt the law isn't a reward.

Covering half the uninsured, increasing the volume of coverage by covering preexisting conditions, and forcing insurance companies to payout a higher percentage of their premiums are all wins in my book. That it may reduce the cost of insurance overall with the exchanges and also reduces the deficit by several hundred billions dollars (queue Sherm to tell us how that's not true) just adds to its positives. That you think its funding sources are stupid is irrelevant.

[Thinine]

Your "medical bankruptcy reform" isn't real Sherm, it's just something spouted by libertarians so they don't seem completely inhuman. Real reform would be UHC.

I don't have health insurance myself, and pay for a monthly prescription out of pocket. I don't care if people that want to "take care of me" think I'm inhuman. This issue is not about health CARE, it is about Health Insurance. Nobody is denied CARE now, so this is just a money issue between private parties. There is only so much the Federal Government can do when it comes to that, and bankruptcy laws are one of them.

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

if a system is designed with the sole purpose of helping workers and instead it results in those workers getting screwed, i'd say that absolutely means the system is bad.

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that. If an employer is so dead set against ever providing health care for its workers that they'd rather hire more workers working fewer hours, there's not a lot the system can do.

There's not a lot "they system" should do. It's a free country and private parties should therefore be free to make and disolve agreements on their own, with "the system" only intervening if one party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

i agree, universal health care would solve this problem. but i disagree that this shitty system should stay in place. it's a compromise between universal health care and no government health care that's simultaneously far shittier than either one.

No, it's far superior to the status quo, as millions more Americans will have health coverage because of it. That some continue to avert it is to be expected.

Millions more Americans will have to pay for the care of others. It is a mandatory middle man, which raises costs on everyone. A completely government run health care system would do the same thing, but with much more bureaucracy, no incentive to keep costs down, and more infringement on our liberties. Considering we are already $16,000,000,000,000,000+ in debt (when you can round to the nearest hundred billion dollars, you are talking about a lot of money), and spending levels are projected to put us at $20 trillion by 2016, the status quo is much, much better.

The sheer amount of delusion in this post is staggering. You appear to have no understanding of how the current health care system works, what Obamacare does, or even the nature of universal health care.

[Gretyl]

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that.

what's the difference? a system that rewards employers for screwing workers isn't functionally different from a system that screws workers.

here we go again

[Gretyl]

Considering we are already $16,000,000,000,000,000+ in debt (when you can round to the nearest hundred billion dollars, you are talking about a lot of money), and spending levels are projected to put us at $20 trillion by 2016, the status quo is much, much better.

The sheer amount of delusion in this post is staggering. You appear to have no understanding of how the current health care system works, what Obamacare does, or even the nature of universal health care.

I also like how he can't write 16 trillion without adding three zeros.

[Uncle Sherm]

Your "medical bankruptcy reform" isn't real Sherm, it's just something spouted by libertarians so they don't seem completely inhuman. Real reform would be UHC.

I don't have health insurance myself, and pay for a monthly prescription out of pocket. I don't care if people that want to "take care of me" think I'm inhuman. This issue is not about health CARE, it is about Health Insurance. Nobody is denied CARE now, so this is just a money issue between private parties. There is only so much the Federal Government can do when it comes to that, and bankruptcy laws are one of them.

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

if a system is designed with the sole purpose of helping workers and instead it results in those workers getting screwed, i'd say that absolutely means the system is bad.

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that. If an employer is so dead set against ever providing health care for its workers that they'd rather hire more workers working fewer hours, there's not a lot the system can do.

There's not a lot "they system" should do. It's a free country and private parties should therefore be free to make and disolve agreements on their own, with "the system" only intervening if one party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

i agree, universal health care would solve this problem. but i disagree that this shitty system should stay in place. it's a compromise between universal health care and no government health care that's simultaneously far shittier than either one.

No, it's far superior to the status quo, as millions more Americans will have health coverage because of it. That some continue to avert it is to be expected.

Millions more Americans will have to pay for the care of others. It is a mandatory middle man, which raises costs on everyone. A completely government run health care system would do the same thing, but with much more bureaucracy, no incentive to keep costs down, and more infringement on our liberties. Considering we are already $16,000,000,000,000,000+ in debt (when you can round to the nearest hundred billion dollars, you are talking about a lot of money), and spending levels are projected to put us at $20 trillion by 2016, the status quo is much, much better.

The sheer amount of delusion in this post is staggering. You appear to have no understanding of how the current health care system works, what Obamacare does, or even the nature of universal health care.

Nobody understands what Obamacare does. Apart from add yet more uncertainty and complication to the regulatory issues already plaguing businesses in this economy, it is already showing signs that it isn't going to work as intended.

[MarcusAurelius]

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that.

what's the difference? a system that rewards employers for screwing workers isn't functionally different from a system that screws workers.

How are they rewarded? That it's still possible to skirt the law isn't a reward.

What? Businesses profit when they slash hours. That's by definition a reward.

Covering half the uninsured, increasing the volume of coverage by covering preexisting conditions,

Sure those are good. Although such a massive piece of legislation that only covers half of what it intends is pretty fail

and forcing insurance companies to payout a higher percentage

Why is that good? Insurance companies shouldn't get to make a profit? You can extend that reasoning to every business. Where's the bill to lower McDonald's prices?

That it may reduce the cost of insurance overall with the exchanges and also reduces the deficit by several hundred billions dollars (queue Sherm to tell us how that's not true) just adds to its positives. That you think its funding sources are stupid is irrelevant.

funding sources are certainly relevant. Jacking up the taxes on the very same people you're paying for services inherently makes it more expensive. That's fucking stupid.

[Santa]

Your "medical bankruptcy reform" isn't real Sherm, it's just something spouted by libertarians so they don't seem completely inhuman. Real reform would be UHC.

I don't have health insurance myself, and pay for a monthly prescription out of pocket. I don't care if people that want to "take care of me" think I'm inhuman. This issue is not about health CARE, it is about Health Insurance. Nobody is denied CARE now, so this is just a money issue between private parties. There is only so much the Federal Government can do when it comes to that, and bankruptcy laws are one of them.

They'll just compensate by working that second job they already have a bit more.

Seriously though, just because employers use the system as an excuse to screw their employees doesn't mean the system is bad. At worst it's incomplete (universal health care would solve this problem nicely). It doesn't mean you abolish the system or do nothing.

if a system is designed with the sole purpose of helping workers and instead it results in those workers getting screwed, i'd say that absolutely means the system is bad.

Except the system isn't screwing the workers, the employer is doing that. If an employer is so dead set against ever providing health care for its workers that they'd rather hire more workers working fewer hours, there's not a lot the system can do.

There's not a lot "they system" should do. It's a free country and private parties should therefore be free to make and disolve agreements on their own, with "the system" only intervening if one party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

i agree, universal health care would solve this problem. but i disagree that this shitty system should stay in place. it's a compromise between universal health care and no government health care that's simultaneously far shittier than either one.

No, it's far superior to the status quo, as millions more Americans will have health coverage because of it. That some continue to avert it is to be expected.

Millions more Americans will have to pay for the care of others. It is a mandatory middle man, which raises costs on everyone. A completely government run health care system would do the same thing, but with much more bureaucracy, no incentive to keep costs down, and more infringement on our liberties. Considering we are already $16,000,000,000,000,000+ in debt (when you can round to the nearest hundred billion dollars, you are talking about a lot of money), and spending levels are projected to put us at $20 trillion by 2016, the status quo is much, much better.

The sheer amount of delusion in this post is staggering. You appear to have no understanding of how the current health care system works, what Obamacare does, or even the nature of universal health care.

Nobody understands what Obamacare does. Apart from add yet more uncertainty and complication to the regulatory issues already plaguing businesses in this economy, it is already showing signs that it isn't going to work as intended.

If no one understands it how does anyone know if it's working as intended?

[Uncle Sherm]

Nobody understands what Obamacare does. Apart from add yet more uncertainty and complication to the regulatory issues already plaguing businesses in this economy, it is already showing signs that it isn't going to work as intended.

If no one understands it how does anyone know if it's working as intended?

They don't. That's a hallmark of the Obama Administration. Be vague in your promises, and use undefined, yet self-evident verbiage to win support for a law that nobody understands. Since everyone arrives at their own expectations based on how they defined Obama's self-evident rhetoric, any skeptic that disagrees can be easily dismissed. Since nobody knows how the law is going to pan out, trust in the administrators and bureaucrats is all supporters have.

The press--armed with their journalism school degrees--are generally among the most ignorant of the populace they are tasked with keeping informed, so they rely on those same administrators and bureaucrats to provide the data that would indicate if the program is working in accordance to this large mosaic of expectations. All anyone has for evidence is their own experience and the accounting data provided to the business school dropouts comprising the fourth estate.

If, by some miracle, it is reported that the new health care law isn't working as well as it should, or is having some adverse effects, the administrators and bureaucrats (not the congress, who consider themselves above such mundane tasks) are tasked with changing the system to fix the problem, usually by closing loopholes and further sacrificing your liberty in the endless cause of regimenting a more efficient society.

[Gretyl]

Whereas you've solved that whole efficiency/liberty gig.

[Uncle Sherm]

Unlike many people, I don't place a premium on a government that feels compelled to order the nuts and bolts of living. It doesn't work and diminishes the energy generated by a more chaotic public.

[Gretyl]

Congrats, barbarian enthusiast.

[Uncle Sherm]

Barbarians come in all forms, including--and throughout the 20th century especially--taking the guise of a government rescuing the people from the consequences of their own freedoms.

[Gretyl]

I love your shitty definition of freedom.

[Uncle Sherm]

You'll have to explain that one, since I don't consider my usage here to be so different from other people's understanding of the term.

[Gretyl]

I don't think that one's on me.

[Uncle Sherm]

My definition of freedom is a pretty standard generic term that refers to the catalog of rights held by individuals to interact and pursue their own lives' objectives in society. That is hardly an unusual definition of the term. If you are rejecting my thesis based on that definition, then it is on you to provide an alternative if this discussion is to go anywhere.