ACA Individual Mandate Struck Down! (Page 2)

Here's something interesting that I haven't thought of.  I saw this posted by a constituent on Lee Terry's (my congresman) Facebook page:

While the SCOUS claimed that it is Constitutional under Congress' ability to tax, when the mandate takes effect in 2014, there is no way that it can stand since there have been so many that have been given exceptions that the tax could not make it under the equal protection clause. Looks as if we may need to wait until 2014.

Hopefully they will campaign not just on repealing it but on you know, their own plan to try and reform the healthcare system. Somehow I doubt it, but that might bring in more voters I'd think.

I fall in this camp.  You "have" to buy car insurance because it benefits everyone if everyone is insured.  So, now you have to buy health insurance because it cuts down on costs for everyone (except those who were uninsured and never paid their bills).

I won't say I agree with EVERYTHING in the act.  Specifically I don't agree with forcing anyone to help pay for free healthcare (like contraception) that conflicts with your own morals.

But I still see this as a step in the right direction.  Increasing the number of insured will reduce costs for everyone and the income from the people who are NOT insured and have to pay the penalty will help cover the costs resulting from uninsured seeking health care.

I really don't see why everyone is so wrapped around the axle over it.  I think the positives outweigh the negatives and I think we really aren't doing anything "new" here.  We've heavily taxed "bad things" like cigarettes for years to mold behavior.  I just don't see this as much different than that.

Well said.

What I want to hear from conservatives/Romney is what they will do if they get elected and repeal the act. So we just go back to the way it was, with unsustainable premium increases of 10% or more per year and huge numbers of uninsured? I'll listen if he suggests real solutions beyond just repealing the act--and even then, why should I believe a politician's promise? Healthcare has been a very big problem for a long time that no one has been willing to address--until now.

Incorrect.  You only have the buy car insurance if you want to drive on a public road

By this logic the government can force you (by levying a tax if you do not) to buy an an American car because it benefits the US economy.  Or solar panels because it benefits the environment.  Or move to Nevada because they don't have a large enough population and it would be beneficial for the country as a whole for Nevada to have more people...

The US government should not be using taxes to control behavior.

You think 10% increases were bad... just wait until insurance companies are forced to cover everyone for everything. 

Insurance needs a fix from the ground up.  Simply forcing people to buy it won't do a thing.

The funny thing is that this WAS the GOP plan.  Nixon proposed it.  The Heritage Foundation proposed it in 1989.  Dole and 19 GOP leaders signed on to it in 1993 as an alternative to Clinton's plan.  Of course- Mitt signed it for MA in 2006.  the GOP leadership were promoting this even during the debates on healthcare and would only sign it if it were this system instead of single payer (eventually of course, none did).  Newt Gingrich was even stumping for it as late as 2009.

It only became evil when Obama put his name on it.  The whole idea of this being 'unconstitutional' wasn't even considered until it became a political tactic.

the GOP is the only political party in any industrialized country that is against a nationalized healthcare system.

Nothing new - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

Yes, ever since 1798, it's all been downhill.

That's what you're waiting and hoping for? Wow.

Let's correct that.

The US government should not be using taxes to mandate behavior.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement as it's written, but the long history of the tax code has been to affect (control) behavior.  

What I am not aware of is anywhere that "mandates" that behavior.

You're right.  We should just band-aid the sucking chest wound...

Apples and wheelbarrows...that's a stretch and you know it...

The sailors could opt out by leaving the navy. 

But, no one is forcing you to buy cigarettes.  I have an option to purchase them or not, and in turn, pay the tax.  I have an option to purchase a car and buy the corresponding insurance or not.  I do not have an option to living.  I'm either living, or I'm not.  In this case, the government is telling me, that if I"m alive, I have to purchase something or get taxed for not.

I tend to believe that's a stretch of the power of our government, and could lead to other types of mandates fashioned very similar.  When you open the door, there is no telling what's going to walk through.

I agree that there are a lot of good things in the ACA, but unfortunately the costs for all the good are going to likely bankrupt the country.

I use the analogy that it would be good to give everyone in the country $1000 dollars.  Who could argue with that.  But unfortunately somebody has to come up with the $1000.

So, in my opinion the bad (the cost) far outweighs the good.  Plus its a government program so it will be riddled with corruption and waste which drives me crazy. 

Other than fear, on what is that statement based? Your premise would be correct if the only people to be added to the roles were the sick and unhealthy. There are also going to be millions more people who are healthy and low risk which will lower costs.    Premiums also have price controls, which you'd know if you read any of the bill.  I forget the exact number, but its something like insurance companies must spend at leaset ~80% of premiums on medical costs.  

Fact of the matter is, sick people get treatment whether they have insurance or not, it's just they tend to wait till they're very sick and the cost of treatment will be higher. And we all pay for that. Would you rather pay for a $10,000 treatment later or a $100 doctor visit and a $500 treatment sooner? 

Not to mention 40,000 people a year who die do to lack of health insurance.  We went to war over 3000 people killed in a one time event and spent trillions of dollars to insure that it doesn't happen again.  But we don't want to spend anything on the 400,000 who have died due to lack of insurance over that same time frame.  

I don't love the idea of being forced into private insurance and I hope that this is just  step towards single payer, like the rest of the advanced, civilized world has and loves.

Well, by that reasoning, you could opt out by moving to a country that doesn't have nationalized health care. Of course, that leaves out the rest of the industrialized western world...

ETA - and directly from the article itself: 

"

Yes, the law at that time required only merchant sailors to purchase health care coverage. Thus, one could argue that nobody was forcing anyone to become a merchant sailor and, therefore, they were not required to purchase health care coverage unless they chose to pursue a career at sea.

However, this is no different than what we are looking at today.

Each of us has the option to turn down employment that would require us to purchase private health insurance under the health care reform law.

Would that be practical? Of course not – just as it would have been impractical for a man seeking employment as a merchant sailor in 1798 to turn down a job on a ship because he would be required by law to purchase health care coverage."

Actually both... in the past the govt has used taxes to control behavior (taxes on "bad things" like cigarettes and alcohol).  I personally think this is wrong but it's been going on for so long how do you stop it.

In this case however they have stepped across the line to mandating behavior with taxes. That's a scary step.

So you are saying changing jobs is equal to changing countries? Come on... That's last paragraph is utter nonsense.

I'm saying that complaining about the individual mandate is nonsense. The government has done exactly that in the past, with the exact same issue - i.e. making people buy insurance in order to provide a large enough pool for the risk. You can say it was limited at that time, but now we are just arguing about degree to which it can be mandated, not the mandate itself.

Except that Romney made the best argument for the individual mandate in Romneycare as governor of Massachusetts.  He said that it was a fairer system that everyone should have to contribute to healthcare rather allow uninsured people to get free health care at emergency rooms. 

I expect that this will be a red meat election issue.  Some changes to the law will result, I hope they are improvements.  I see the point of those who dislike being forced into paying for healthcare but it is for a greater good that everyone cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

I have great health insurance as a job benefit.  With my company, I am in a pool of healthcare recipients who are well-paid, well-educated, and health conscious. As a result, I am a better healthcare risk for insurance companies. They want me in their pool of insureds and don't want others.  The people who are currently uninsured that will become insured ACA are, on average, less healthy and will cost more to cover than the people who are currently insured. Under the ACA, I will be able to keep my insurance, but I believe that my costs will go up and the benefits will go down as currently uninsureds are added to the insured pool.  The need for the individual mandate is that the costs would go up astronomically if only the uninsured with health care problems joined the insured pool. And they were free to do so under the clause that prevents excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The recognition of the likely cost increases, at least initially, to people who are currently insured (but healthy) is at the root of the opposition to the healthcare mandate rather than those who are uninsured and wish to remain so.  I accept the mandate and the likely increases in premiums as a necessary loss to make healthcare fairer to the country as a whole.  Even though I have personally benefitted by it, I do see this exclusionary practice as inherently unfair to a majority of Americans.  The ACA will end this practice. 

Twenty years from now, I believe that the country will be healthier physically and financially because of the ACA and costs of healthcare will be lower than they would be without ACA.   People will get preventative care and health counseling before they become disabled to the extent that they cannot work and wind up on Social Security.  Mothers will get prenatal care and avoid the costs of birth defects from vitamin deficiencies which could be prevented. Catastrophic illnesses will no longer drive families into bankruptcies.   It is a good thing.  There is a cumulative effect of healthcare provided over time.  It is already working in Massachusetts thanks to Gov. Romney.

We have been on the slippery slope to socialism for awhile now.  I am no longer surprised at how the government will go about it.   

I think 20 years from now there will be 2 or 3 political swings in Washington with each adding to or removing from the law to the point that it will be in far worse shape than any other government program.  Both parties will blame the other for why the costs are going through the roof and things aren't working the way they're supposed to.

I am so horribly disappointed with Washington in general (both parties) that I have absolutely zero faith that they can create a program that reduces costs and provides value.  I just can't see that happening.

No. Gridlock is more likely.  It will be hard for one party or the other to achieve a sufficient majority to change things very much.   That is also a good thing. 

This goes back to a point that i made on a previous thread.  Where was the outrage from the R's when their party was proposing similar plans, but now is the end of our nation.

Obama could say Republicans are wonderful people that Republicans would start screaming how dare you say that about us, we are evil.

Yeah cause that is working out so well for Social Security and Medicare which are running of a rail.