|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
zephyr wrote:Nancy wrote:In addition to affirming that Congress can still levy taxes, the Supreme Court decision affirmed that Congress is still authorized to make laws. What really happened, here, is that Congress passed a law just like they're supposed to do. The Republicans refused to cooperate with the process and tried to stop the law, even though it's basically a Republican law. They failed to stop the law so a bunch of Republican governors refused to implement the law and decided to see how long they could tie it up in the courts. The President had signed the bill into law, just like he's authorized to do. He decided to cut through the passive aggressive BS and ask the Court to decide whether it was Constitutional. The Justices ruled that it is, in fact, Constitutional. Congress can still legislate and the President can still execute laws adopted by Congress. What remains to be seen is whether or not opponents of future legislation adopted by Congress will continue to use the Court to try to delay or derail it. Traditionally, laws have been challenged by individuals who are affected by them. Is this a precedent for requiring the Court to review the work of Congress and the President before it has even been implemented? Another question...what's going to happen with those governors, like Scott Walker, who refuse to implement the law because they don't agree with it? They're breaking the law. Are they going to be penalized in some way, or are they ushering in a new era of lawlessness in America? If public officials can pick and choose which laws to follow, why can't anyone do the same? Here's an editorial on the subject. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/health-care-barriers-are-now-political-au5ti12-160910765.html This is a stunning dismissal and misrepresentation of the legitimate constitutional issues raised in this case. I also find the hypocrisy surprising, as I don't remember any dissent on your part regarding the legal challenges to recent legislation passed in Wisconsin. Using courts to determine whether or not legislation is consistent with existing legal and constitutional requirements is an appropriate action. Don't ignore the fact that a major portion of the law, forced Medicaid expansion, was found unconstitutional, as was the initial justification of the law under the Commerce Clause. I'd be more impressed with the faux outrage if there wasn't some form of mandatory auto insurance in almost every state and mandatory health insurance in at least two. Hawaii has had mandatory health insurance for 36 years. So, the precedent has been established...government can make you buy something. While these are state laws, they have to be consistent with U.S. Constitution. If the Court had ruled against the mandate, all those other state laws and programs (including Romneycare) would probably have come crashing down. The only Constitutional question was whether or not the feds could establish insurance rules when that's traditionally been a state function. Even that barrier was broken with the inception of Medicaid, but traditional Medicaid did not involve private corporations plying their trade under individual state rules (until recently...many states now use insurers like UHC to manage their Medicaid programs). The interstate commerce argument was, essentially, that health insurers operate across state lines so health insurance is interstate commerce. The Constitution gives the feds power to govern interstate commerce. The Court rejected that argument and called the fine a tax. Congress can levy taxes, so that settles the question. The Medicaid expansion is another bogus issue. Medicaid is a federally mandated program. There's precedent for Congress expanding Medicaid. SCHIP was an expansion of Medicaid. The court objected to the way it was done in this instance, but that just means that they go back to the drawing board.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
rubber wrote:Nancy wrote:
How many centuries of discussion would be enough for you? We've already had a century's worth of discussion. Are you suggesting that wasn't enough...we need to talk about it for another 100 years before we actually do something?
Are you saying that ACA is a culmination of centuries of debate? One century, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt. He attempted a universal healthcare plan called the Square Deal. It was derailed by WW I. Coolidge,Truman and Kennedy each took a stab at universal healthcare and failed. Franklin Roosevelt was not able to do anything with healthcare, because of the Depression, but he enacted Social Security. Johnson made significant progress with Medicaid and Medicare. The ACA has features in common with Nixon's healthcare proposal. That never got off the ground because of Watergate. Carter had a plan that was derailed by the recession. Reagan signed COBRA. Bush Sr. signed the ADA (not really health insurance, but it offered protections for people with disabilities). Then there's Hillary Clinton's failed healthcare plan. We're coming up on the 20th anniversary of that debacle. So, Obama did something that all those other presidents couldn't do. It may be just a step in the right direction, but it's a colossal step and one that nobody else was able to achieve.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
Nancy wrote: There will really be no excuse for anyone not to have coverage. Unless you're an undocumented worker, then you still get to go to the ER and have your health mended for free. Why do you think they have exempted illegal immigrants from the mandatory health insurance rule, but they have not exempted them from the mandatory auto insurance rule?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
Requiring poor migrant workers to have health insurance would have meant letting them have Medicaid. The very thought of illegals on Medicaid makes right wing heads explode. If undocumented workers were included in the mandate, you'd be quivering with outrage over that.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
Nancy wrote:Requiring poor migrant workers to have health insurance would have meant letting them have Medicaid. The very thought of illegals on Medicaid makes right wing heads explode. If undocumented workers were included in the mandate, you'd be quivering with outrage over that. Nice deflection, but speak to the point. Do you think we should “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have health insurance the same way we “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have auto insurance? I'm just curious to find out if your knee-jerk bone is connected to your consistent-thought bone.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/13/2008
Posts: 554
Location: Tosa
|
Nancy wrote:Requiring poor migrant workers to have health insurance would have meant letting them have Medicaid. The very thought of illegals on Medicaid makes right wing heads explode. If undocumented workers were included in the mandate, you'd be quivering with outrage over that. Where have I heard that before...
It's nice to be nice to the nice - Frank Burns (M*A*S*H)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/26/2007
Posts: 2,446
Location: eastside tosa
|
joeythelovesponge wrote:Nancy wrote:Requiring poor migrant workers to have health insurance would have meant letting them have Medicaid. The very thought of illegals on Medicaid makes right wing heads explode. If undocumented workers were included in the mandate, you'd be quivering with outrage over that. Nice deflection, but speak to the point. Do you think we should “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have health insurance the same way we “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have auto insurance? I'm just curious to find out if your knee-jerk bone is connected to your consistent-thought bone. I'm guessing you need to take that up with Jim Doyle. But then again what does something that gets mandated in Wisconsin have to do with something mandated at the federal level?
The dickens you say.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
joeythelovesponge wrote:Nancy wrote:Requiring poor migrant workers to have health insurance would have meant letting them have Medicaid. The very thought of illegals on Medicaid makes right wing heads explode. If undocumented workers were included in the mandate, you'd be quivering with outrage over that. Nice deflection, but speak to the point. Do you think we should “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have health insurance the same way we “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have auto insurance? I'm just curious to find out if your knee-jerk bone is connected to your consistent-thought bone. That is the point, dude. The reason undocumented workers aren't covered by the ACA is that there was such a hue and cry over the prospect of illegals benefiting from the system in some way that they were deliberately excluded. They can't buy into the exchanges and their access to Medicaid is very limited. You must have a pretty short memory if you don't remember the squawking and flapping over this issue. So if you expressly exclude them from any of the benefits of the ACA, including the exchanges, how can you turn around and require them to buy insurance? That would be like saying "It's against the law for you to have this, but it's also against the law for you not to have it." Even you must see the illogic. Car insurance is a different matter. They're allowed to buy car insurance so they should have it or pay the penalty.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
2rottieguy wrote:joeythelovesponge wrote:Nancy wrote:Requiring poor migrant workers to have health insurance would have meant letting them have Medicaid. The very thought of illegals on Medicaid makes right wing heads explode. If undocumented workers were included in the mandate, you'd be quivering with outrage over that. Nice deflection, but speak to the point. Do you think we should “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have health insurance the same way we “tax” poor migrant workers who don't have auto insurance? I'm just curious to find out if your knee-jerk bone is connected to your consistent-thought bone. I'm guessing you need to take that up with Jim Doyle. But then again what does something that gets mandated in Wisconsin have to do with something mandated at the federal level? Car insurance is mandated almost everywhere. I've never registered a car anywhere, in more than 40 years, without also having to buy insurance. You had to show proof of insurance before you could register a car in NY and MA when I was young. No insurance, no registration. When I looked it up, there were 47 states that mandated specific levels of auto insurance and the other three required limited coverage.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/15/2011
Posts: 241
Location: Tosa Eastside
|
Nancy wrote: Car insurance is mandated almost everywhere. I've never registered a car anywhere, in more than 40 years, without also having to buy insurance. You had to show proof of insurance before you could register a car in NY and MA when I was young. No insurance, no registration. When I looked it up, there were 47 states that mandated specific levels of auto insurance and the other three required limited coverage.
In Wisconsin carrying insurance is not even tied to owning a vehicle, just having a valid license is. Don't forget, on top of liability insurance we are also required to carry liability insurance for the unisured and underinsured motorists.
"When you walk through the door of opportunity, you do not slam it behind you. You reach back and help others succeed." ~Michelle Obama, Septemebr 04, 2012~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
Nancy wrote:
That is the point, dude. The reason undocumented workers aren't covered by the ACA is that there was such a hue and cry over the prospect of illegals benefiting from the system in some way that they were deliberately excluded. They can't buy into the exchanges and their access to Medicaid is very limited. You must have a pretty short memory if you don't remember the squawking and flapping over this issue.
So if you expressly exclude them from any of the benefits of the ACA, including the exchanges, how can you turn around and require them to buy insurance? That would be like saying "It's against the law for you to have this, but it's also against the law for you not to have it." Even you must see the illogic.
Car insurance is a different matter. They're allowed to buy car insurance so they should have it or pay the penalty.
You sure sound like you know what you're talking about. Are you saying they are exempt from the rule that requires them to purchase insurance, but can purchase health insurance if they choose to, or does the law prohibit them from purchasing health insurance, even if they are willing to pay the premium?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008
Posts: 431
Location: WI
|
Nancy wrote: There will really be no excuse for anyone not to have coverage. The incentive for younger people to have health insurance is lower under Obamacare than it was before. I would have never gone without insurance because of the “what if” situations. In the past there were two big “what if” situations. First, there was always the risk that you got diagnosed with some long term problem that would throw you into the preexisting conditions area. Second, there is the risk of a one-time big expense medical bill. If you are a younger person without any assets, the second “what if” is not very scary. The odds are slim and worst case you simply declare bankruptcy and get out from under the one time medical bills. Under Obamacare you no longer have to worry about the preexisting conditions issues. Obamacare has two problems in regard to this issue. First, the penalties for the mandate are not severe enough. The tax you pay for not having insurance should be somewhere close to what your insurance premium would be. As it stands, the tax is much lower than the premium, so there is an incentive to simply pay the tax instead of the premiums. Second, with the community rating in Obamacare, the premiums for younger people are going to go way up. The community rating limits how much less younger people can be charged for premiums compared to older people. Because of this younger people will be charged much more than they have in the past. Higher costs, no worries about preexisting condition issues, and low penalties for not having insurance will lead to a lot of people making the choice to not have health insurance under Obamacare.
If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own. Henry Ford
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
2rottieguy wrote:
I'm guessing you need to take that up with Jim Doyle. But then again what does something that gets mandated in Wisconsin have to do with something mandated at the federal level?
umm...they're both mandates?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
Happytransplant1 wrote:
In Wisconsin carrying insurance is not even tied to owning a vehicle, just having a valid license is.
Don't forget, on top of liability insurance we are also required to carry liability insurance for the unisured and underinsured motorists.
You're wrong. a few years ago, Al Gore invented the Internet. It makes fact checking real easy. Thanks, Al.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008
Posts: 431
Location: WI
|
Nancy wrote: Another question...what's going to happen with those governors, like Scott Walker, who refuse to implement the law because they don't agree with it? They're breaking the law. Are they going to be penalized in some way, or are they ushering in a new era of lawlessness in America? If public officials can pick and choose which laws to follow, why can't anyone do the same? No governor is breaking the law. They have until January of 2013 to show that they have a blueprint for how their exchange will be run and that it will be up and running by January of 2014. If the state doesn’t have adequate plans, the feds will simply step in and run the state exchange. I think it actually might make sense to let the feds set up the exchange. Why have every state working from scratch on the exchange? I don’t see why it should vary much from state to state, so I think the feds could simply come up with a template and then implement it in the states. Wouldn’t that be a lot cheaper? I think a lot of states regardless of the politics of their governors are going to find it easier to simply let the feds run the exchange. Even if you want the state set up the exchange, waiting a few months to see how things shake out doesn’t seem to be a bad idea, and it certainly isn’t breaking the law.
If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own. Henry Ford
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
Nancy wrote: If public officials can pick and choose which laws to follow, why can't anyone do the same?
you're talking about Eric Holder, no?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
commonsense2008 wrote: Nancy wrote: Another question...what's going to happen with those governors, like Scott Walker, who refuse to implement the law because they don't agree with it? They're breaking the law. Are they going to be penalized in some way, or are they ushering in a new era of lawlessness in America? If public officials can pick and choose which laws to follow, why can't anyone do the same? No governor is breaking the law. They have until January of 2013 to show that they have a blueprint for how their exchange will be run and that it will be up and running by January of 2014. If the state doesn’t have adequate plans, the feds will simply step in and run the state exchange. I think it actually might make sense to let the feds set up the exchange. Why have every state working from scratch on the exchange? I don’t see why it should vary much from state to state, so I think the feds could simply come up with a template and then implement it in the states. Wouldn’t that be a lot cheaper? I think a lot of states regardless of the politics of their governors are going to find it easier to simply let the feds run the exchange. Even if you want the state set up the exchange, waiting a few months to see how things shake out doesn’t seem to be a bad idea, and it certainly isn’t breaking the law. I'm on the email list for all the leftie outfits like the DNC, moveon.org, whitehouse.gov, occupy etc. It's not an exaggeration to say I get quite a few emails per day. Some of the talking points in those emails inevitably work their way into these topics. A few minutes after the SCOTUS ruling, the emails started rolling in. One of the emails called the recipients to action by imploring them to send a message to “law-breaking Governors, like Scott Walker of Wisconsin” to encourage his quick compliance with the new law. It's programmed thought.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
joeythelovesponge wrote:Nancy wrote:
That is the point, dude. The reason undocumented workers aren't covered by the ACA is that there was such a hue and cry over the prospect of illegals benefiting from the system in some way that they were deliberately excluded. They can't buy into the exchanges and their access to Medicaid is very limited. You must have a pretty short memory if you don't remember the squawking and flapping over this issue.
So if you expressly exclude them from any of the benefits of the ACA, including the exchanges, how can you turn around and require them to buy insurance? That would be like saying "It's against the law for you to have this, but it's also against the law for you not to have it." Even you must see the illogic.
Car insurance is a different matter. They're allowed to buy car insurance so they should have it or pay the penalty.
You sure sound like you know what you're talking about. Are you saying they are exempt from the rule that requires them to purchase insurance, but can purchase health insurance if they choose to, or does the law prohibit them from purchasing health insurance, even if they are willing to pay the premium? I do know what I'm talking about. Once the exchanges are operational, private health insurance will most likely be limited to high priced supplemental plans. If illegal immigrants are prohibited from buying on the exchanges and prohibited from taking part in Medicaid expansion plans, there will be no practical way for them to buy insurance. Most illegal immigrants would fall into the category of working poor. No reasonable person would expect migrant workers, for example, to have the means to buy into the costly private market. Thus, they're exempt from the mandate because they're prohibited from purchasing affordable insurance.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/13/2007
Posts: 10,911
Location: East Side Wauwatosa
|
joeythelovesponge wrote:Nancy wrote: If public officials can pick and choose which laws to follow, why can't anyone do the same?
you're talking about Eric Holder, no? What law is Eric Holder breaking? The Justice Department isn't going to prosecute, presumably because there's no crime. I've heard that Issa wants to do a civil suit. That should be interesting.
Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/4/2007
Posts: 1,848
Location: tosa
|
Nancy wrote:joeythelovesponge wrote:Nancy wrote:
That is the point, dude. The reason undocumented workers aren't covered by the ACA is that there was such a hue and cry over the prospect of illegals benefiting from the system in some way that they were deliberately excluded. They can't buy into the exchanges and their access to Medicaid is very limited. You must have a pretty short memory if you don't remember the squawking and flapping over this issue.
So if you expressly exclude them from any of the benefits of the ACA, including the exchanges, how can you turn around and require them to buy insurance? That would be like saying "It's against the law for you to have this, but it's also against the law for you not to have it." Even you must see the illogic.
Car insurance is a different matter. They're allowed to buy car insurance so they should have it or pay the penalty.
You sure sound like you know what you're talking about. Are you saying they are exempt from the rule that requires them to purchase insurance, but can purchase health insurance if they choose to, or does the law prohibit them from purchasing health insurance, even if they are willing to pay the premium? I do know what I'm talking about. Once the exchanges are operational, private health insurance will most likely be limited to high priced supplemental plans. If illegal immigrants are prohibited from buying on the exchanges and prohibited from taking part in Medicaid expansion plans, there will be no practical way for them to buy insurance. Most illegal immigrants would fall into the category of working poor. No reasonable person would expect migrant workers, for example, to have the means to buy into the costly private market. Thus, they're exempt from the mandate because they're prohibited from purchasing affordable insurance. How does it make you feel to learn you are supporting a law that dis-enfranchises millions of people? How would you feel about Scott Walker making law that makes it illegal for an illegal to legally buy insurance for his hoop-d. Would you be cool with that too?
|
|
|
Guest |