ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

I'm not proposing an alternative to government itself. I have something more decentralized in mind.

Fine. Explain.

Just so you know, BBS, I understand your earlier points.. and primarily agree with you.

But I, too, am curious about this decentralization.

Rules by the many not rules by the few.

That is democracy, not rule by corporations.

So, why is it that all you want to do is cut any restriction on corporate activity, limit virtually all government imposed restraints on those activities?

thats ridiculous. that is very extreme and nothing close to anything mentioned heretofore

[Night Strike]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

[GreecePwns]

After instituting a similar plan in his own state...just scoring political points there.

[Night Strike]

After instituting a similar plan in his own state...just scoring political points there.

I disagree with his health care insurance plan in Massachusetts, which is why I will vote against him in the primary, but he is right on one thing: it should be the state governments that do these types of plans, not a one-size-fits-all forced on every person by the federal government. The Constitution exactly provides for states to try out policies such as Massachusetts health care law while exactly banning the federal government from doing the same. We need to stop looking to federal solutions to all of our issues (or perceived issues) and start relying on the states to do more (without forcing unconstitutional mandates on them such as increasing medicare spending).

By the way, Romney had an answer to the claim that Obama modeled his plan off of Massachusetts's plan: why didn't Obama call Romney and ask how it had been done?

[stahrgazer]

After instituting a similar plan in his own state...just scoring political points there.

I disagree with his health care insurance plan in Massachusetts, which is why I will vote against him in the primary, but he is right on one thing: it should be the state governments that do these types of plans, not a one-size-fits-all forced on every person by the federal government. The Constitution exactly provides for states to try out policies such as Massachusetts health care law while exactly banning the federal government from doing the same. We need to stop looking to federal solutions to all of our issues (or perceived issues) and start relying on the states to do more (without forcing unconstitutional mandates on them such as increasing medicare spending).

By the way, Romney had an answer to the claim that Obama modeled his plan off of Massachusetts's plan: why didn't Obama call Romney and ask how it had been done?

If the feds shouldn't mandate these things, then social security and medicare (and medicaid) taxes should be discontinued tomorrow. tuff luck, seniors and disableds.

[Night Strike]

If the feds shouldn't mandate these things, then social security and medicare (and medicaid) taxes should be discontinued tomorrow. tuff luck, seniors and disableds.

That's why they should have been ruled as unconstitutional when they were first passed. But when Social Security was passed, FDR strong-armed the Supreme Court by threatening to stack it to make sure it was allowed to stand. The Supreme Court got the political message and allowed it through anyway. And now you get the issue where policies that are blatantly unconstitutional can't be stopped because people just wrongly assume that they're normal and the way things should be.

[PLAYER57832]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

Then you will keep paying for my kid's healthcare, instead of the insurance company (we will be insured, but if the old rules are reinstated, the insurer won't have to cover their pre-existing conditions). Neither my husband or I will be truly insured for anything but 100% new injuries and illnesses .. though we will still have to pay full premiums.

but hey, at least its not socialism
Except.... HMOs pretty much are, only much worse.

[PLAYER57832]

Rules by the many not rules by the few.

That is democracy, not rule by corporations.

So, why is it that all you want to do is cut any restriction on corporate activity, limit virtually all government imposed restraints on those activities?

thats ridiculous. that is very extreme and nothing close to anything mentioned heretofore

Hmmm then you have not thought very hard about what reducing government really means.

[Night Strike]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

Then you will keep paying for my kid's healthcare, instead of the insurance company (we will be insured, but if the old rules are reinstated, the insurer won't have to cover their pre-existing conditions). Neither my husband or I will be truly insured for anything but 100% new injuries and illnesses .. though we will still have to pay full premiums.

but hey, at least its not socialism
Except.... HMOs pretty much are, only much worse.

Here's a novel idea: pay for your own damn kids. You chose to have them, so take care of them. When I choose to have kids, it will be MY responsibility to take care of them too. I'm not going to go crying to the federal government to require you to pay for them.

[PLAYER57832]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

Then you will keep paying for my kid's healthcare, instead of the insurance company (we will be insured, but if the old rules are reinstated, the insurer won't have to cover their pre-existing conditions). Neither my husband or I will be truly insured for anything but 100% new injuries and illnesses .. though we will still have to pay full premiums.

but hey, at least its not socialism
Except.... HMOs pretty much are, only much worse.

Here's a novel idea: pay for your own damn kids. You chose to have them, so take care of them. When I choose to have kids, it will be MY responsibility to take care of them too. I'm not going to go crying to the federal government to require you to pay for them.

Here is an even more novel idea: IF I PAY FOR INSURANCE I SHOULD BE COVERED BY INSURANCE, not rejected the minute we have any kind of illness requiring treatment

[GreecePwns]

The 10th Amendment seems to be Night Strike's Bible.

[Night Strike]

If anyone watched the Republican Debate on CNN, Romney had a great line: if Obamacare has not already been declared unconstitutional or been repealed, on the first day of office he would grant waivers to all 50 states.

Then you will keep paying for my kid's healthcare, instead of the insurance company (we will be insured, but if the old rules are reinstated, the insurer won't have to cover their pre-existing conditions). Neither my husband or I will be truly insured for anything but 100% new injuries and illnesses .. though we will still have to pay full premiums.

but hey, at least its not socialism
Except.... HMOs pretty much are, only much worse.

Here's a novel idea: pay for your own damn kids. You chose to have them, so take care of them. When I choose to have kids, it will be MY responsibility to take care of them too. I'm not going to go crying to the federal government to require you to pay for them.

Here is an even more novel idea: IF I PAY FOR INSURANCE I SHOULD BE COVERED BY INSURANCE, not rejected the minute we have any kind of illness requiring treatment

Then fix that issue, don't suddenly go around forcing everyone to buy something they may not want. Stop doing employer-based insurance and suddenly insurance companies will find a way to cover higher-risk individuals. Stop believing that higher-risk people should not be forced to pay more in premiums and/or deductibles. We don't need to waste trillions of dollars to make those changes.

The 10th Amendment seems to be Night Strike's Bible.

Nope, but the Constitution is supposed to be the Bible of the federal government. And the 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have the explicit permission to do a task, then then the task falls to the states and local governments. It's pretty self-explanatory, but it doesn't fit into the progressive agenda, so it has to be ignored.

[Metsfanmax]

Nope, but the Constitution is supposed to be the Bible of the federal government. And the 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have the explicit permission to do a task, then then the task falls to the states and local governments. It's pretty self-explanatory, but it doesn't fit into the progressive agenda, so it has to be ignored.

Do you believe that EMTALA is unconstitutional?

[PLAYER57832]

Then fix that issue, don't suddenly go around forcing everyone to buy something they may not want.

LOL time to grow up. Nobody thinks they will really need insurance... until they do. THAT is why folks like you who think you should not have to pay have to be forced to do so. And, it needs to be a universal system with limits based on evidence, not just CEO paychecks.

I do not in any way think the latest bill is "the" solution. BUT, the one thing it does do is require insurance companies to pay for children with pre-existing conditions immediately. In 2012, they will have to cover everyone.

For all your launching into your "deadbeat" speech, you neatly forgot the fact I mentioned that I have paid into insurance for over 30 years. When my husband lost his job, we were told continuing a much lessor insurance policy (not even the one in which we were already enrolled!) would cost 1300 a month.

Stop doing employer-based insurance and suddenly insurance companies will find a way to cover higher-risk individuals.

Taking employers out of the equation will help, yes. However, what we really need is a single payor system administered by the government.

Stop believing that higher-risk people should not be forced to pay more in premiums and/or deductibles. We don't need to waste trillions of dollars to make those changes.

LOL.. would be nice if you verified stuff before throwig out all these "truisms".

Explain how someone making 30,000 is going to afford a $1300 a month premium for insurance? And explain how it is OK that in one of the most advanced countries on earth, a person can work 40 plus hours and STILL not be ablet o afford insurance... yet virtually every other industrialized country on earth and a few not-so-industrialized nations are able to do just that?

[GreecePwns]

Nope, but the Constitution is supposed to be the Bible of the federal government. And the 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have the explicit permission to do a task, then then the task falls to the states and local governments. It's pretty self-explanatory, but it doesn't fit into the progressive agenda, so it has to be ignored.

Interstate commerce clause? If it can be used to regulate segregation of food places in the south because the salt used at dining tables in Alabama comes from Mississippi (or whatever state, I forgot), it can apply to pretty much anything.

[Night Strike]

Then fix that issue, don't suddenly go around forcing everyone to buy something they may not want.

LOL time to grow up. Nobody thinks they will really need insurance... until they do. THAT is why folks like you who think you should not have to pay have to be forced to do so. And, it needs to be a universal system with limits based on evidence, not just CEO paychecks.

Funny that the person who fights gung-ho over a woman having the right to make her own medical decisions regarding an abortion says that people aren't allowed to make their own medical decisions regarding insurance. Yep, really consistent there.

For all your launching into your "deadbeat" speech, you neatly forgot the fact I mentioned that I have paid into insurance for over 30 years. When my husband lost his job, we were told continuing a much lessor insurance policy (not even the one in which we were already enrolled!) would cost 1300 a month.

Like I said, remove company policies from the system and it will work much better.

Stop doing employer-based insurance and suddenly insurance companies will find a way to cover higher-risk individuals.

Taking employers out of the equation will help, yes. However, what we really need is a single payor system administered by the government.

Yeah, because the federal government is so responsive to our needs. It only takes them years to decide whether or not they want to issue permits for businesses, medicines, or land usage. But don't worry, they'll decide within hours whether or not a person can have a treatment (nevermind whether or not the doctor thinks so). Oh yeah, and they'll only pay the doctor a fraction of the actual cost of the procedure. It sounds like a perfect system to me; I'm glad we can develop something that works so beautifully for the government that wishes to control our lives.

Explain how someone making 30,000 is going to afford a $1300 a month premium for insurance? And explain how it is OK that in one of the most advanced countries on earth, a person can work 40 plus hours and STILL not be ablet o afford insurance... yet virtually every other industrialized country on earth and a few not-so-industrialized nations are able to do just that?

Make more money. And no other country has the population nor the medical innovation that we have, which is why it can (marginally) succeed in other countries.

[Night Strike]

Nope, but the Constitution is supposed to be the Bible of the federal government. And the 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have the explicit permission to do a task, then then the task falls to the states and local governments. It's pretty self-explanatory, but it doesn't fit into the progressive agenda, so it has to be ignored.

Interstate commerce clause? If it can be used to regulate segregation of food places in the south because the salt used at dining tables in Alabama comes from Mississippi (or whatever state, I forgot), it can apply to pretty much anything.

Which is a GROSS exaggeration of that clause. The clause is meant to regulate the actual selling of that product across the state lines, not what the buying company actually does with the product. The clause was put in place so states could not put their own taxes on items purchased from other states, not so the federal government can magically decide they can do anything they want to do.

[GreecePwns]

Nope, but the Constitution is supposed to be the Bible of the federal government. And the 10th Amendment says that if the federal government does not have the explicit permission to do a task, then then the task falls to the states and local governments. It's pretty self-explanatory, but it doesn't fit into the progressive agenda, so it has to be ignored.

Interstate commerce clause? If it can be used to regulate segregation of food places in the south because the salt used at dining tables in Alabama comes from Mississippi (or whatever state, I forgot), it can apply to pretty much anything.

Which is a GROSS exaggeration of that clause. The clause is meant to regulate the actual selling of that product across the state lines, not what the buying company actually does with the product. The clause was put in place so states could not put their own taxes on items purchased from other states, not so the federal government can magically decide they can do anything they want to do.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Well, the only argument you've presented here in this thread (other than "rich people from other countries come here," which is laughable at best) is that the Constitution doesn't allow it. I'm saying it clearly does. I'm sorry not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution, but the example I've given is precedent enough. Your ideas about the Constitution are not the only ones, in case you didn't notice.

If you can find empirical data - any economic history, any studies done, any thing involving numbers at all - to show a free market system would better serve the American people in terms of gaining health insurance, I'd like to see it.

I, for one point you in the direction of the French system.

[Night Strike]

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Well, the only argument you've presented here in this thread (other than "rich people from other countries come here," which is laughable at best) is that the Constitution doesn't allow it. I'm saying it clearly does. I'm sorry not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution, but the example I've given is precedent enough. Your ideas about the Constitution are not the only ones, in case you didn't notice.

Where is "forcing an individual to purchase a good or service due to being alive" seen in the Constitution? Where has it been interpreted by any court before this law? It hasn't, because it's not a power of the federal government. What's ultimately ironic is that the federal government prohibits insurance companies from selling policies from one state to another, yet they then think they can also step in and regulate it by using the Commerce clause. If there is no business crossing state lines, then the federal government can't regulate ANY of it!! Yet because we have progressives in office, they believe the federal government can do whatever the hell they want to do.

And people from other countries DO come here, including politicians who support the single-payer systems in Canada.

[Metsfanmax]

Then fix that issue, don't suddenly go around forcing everyone to buy something they may not want.

LOL time to grow up. Nobody thinks they will really need insurance... until they do. THAT is why folks like you who think you should not have to pay have to be forced to do so. And, it needs to be a universal system with limits based on evidence, not just CEO paychecks.

Funny that the person who fights gung-ho over a woman having the right to make her own medical decisions regarding an abortion says that people aren't allowed to make their own medical decisions regarding insurance. Yep, really consistent there.

It is perfectly consistent. Those without insurance have no medical options -- they can't seek medical attention when they need it. Having insurance allows them to seek a doctor when they deem it necessary.

It is apparently you who wants people to not have the right to make any medical decisions at all.

[GreecePwns]

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Well, the only argument you've presented here in this thread (other than "rich people from other countries come here," which is laughable at best) is that the Constitution doesn't allow it. I'm saying it clearly does. I'm sorry not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution, but the example I've given is precedent enough. Your ideas about the Constitution are not the only ones, in case you didn't notice.

Where is "forcing an individual to purchase a good or service due to being alive" seen in the Constitution? Where has it been interpreted by any court before this law? It hasn't, because it's not a power of the federal government. What's ultimately ironic is that the federal government prohibits insurance companies from selling policies from one state to another, yet they then think they can also step in and regulate it by using the Commerce clause. If there is no business crossing state lines, then the federal government can't regulate ANY of it!! Yet because we have progressives in office, they believe the federal government can do whatever the hell they want to do.

And people from other countries DO come here, including politicians who support the single-payer systems in Canada.

I'm not advocating unconstitutional Obama-style corporate welfare. I'm advocating the French system, a mix of public insurance and private doctors which is entirely constitutional.

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

[Night Strike]

I'm not advocating unconstitutional Obama-style corporate welfare. I'm advocating the French system, a mix of public insurance and private doctors which is entirely constitutional.

We already have public insurance with private doctors in Medicare and Medicaid, and they don't pay the doctors the price of the procedures. And either way, the government's issuing of "public insurance" is in itself unconstitutional as there is nothing in the constitution saying the government's job is to sell a product.

[john9blue]

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

who? sanders?

[GreecePwns]

And show me the progressives in office. The Democrats? Ha. There is one progressive in all of Congress.

who? sanders?

Yes. And before you go, "oh so you're to the left of the Democrats, so you must be a socialist," you have to be delirious to believe any party calling itself "progressive" party whose biggest influence in the past couple of years on this issue are Blanche Lincoln and the Blue Dog Democrats. He is the only one on the left in Congress who is actively working against the vicegrip the Democrats and Republicans parties have on power.

[GreecePwns]

I'm not advocating unconstitutional Obama-style corporate welfare. I'm advocating the French system, a mix of public insurance and private doctors which is entirely constitutional.

We already have public insurance with private doctors in Medicare and Medicaid, and they don't pay the doctors the price of the procedures. And either way, the government's issuing of "public insurance" is in itself unconstitutional as there is nothing in the constitution saying the government's job is to sell a product.

So are reimbursements too low or costs to high?

Also, French doctors make one-sixth of what doctors here do, but their medical school is subsidized by the government. And yet, the percent of doctors per capita is higher there than here.