ACA Individual Mandate Struck Down! (Page 7)

Hey, no personal attacks on my math skills.  

I don't think they're getting the same care as the rich people.  I think the law only says that a hospital cannot turn away anyone based on ability to pay, but I think they're only required to stabilize them versus give them the tests necessary to really diagnose what's going on.

To take a step back though I don't think there's really any way for any of us to truly know how this is all going to pan out (financially and coverage wise).  Your glass is half full and mine is half empty, on this subject.  I am skeptical of the governments ability to get it right, and you are optimistic that they will get it right.  Time will tell

And your spelling's poor, too!

I am not so much optimistic that the government will "get it right" as I am realistic that the approach now of using "free market" policies where faceless and brainless nay-sayers in some corporate office in an insurance company will do the thing that makes the most for stockholders is a terrible way to run a healthcare system in a country that has the resources we do. The "government" is not really going to be running the new program either, which is frankly its biggest weakness. My fear is that we get the worst of both worlds.

I just read an interesting article that somebody posted on their FB page.  http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

There hasn't been much in the media about the Medicare funding portion that was struck down, but this paragraph has me going hmmm.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

A FB acquaintance wrote this:

the hospital financial administrator told me about 4 years ago about my 2 hour ER visit: "yes, you have to pay the $10,000, even tho YOU have gret insuranace - because you're paying for the people that don't have insurance"...seriously? so yes, i support today's ruling...now we all get to share in the costs...the taxes will be cheaper than what i paid to XXX XXX hospital...

i'm still pissed

 well, i may not be a fan of the mandate, but until everyone buys their own health insurance and stops putting their costs on me, then it's been proven the only way to do that is to make them do it...

This is the same woman who I had to take to XXXX General Hospital in about 1995 when she had a bad bike wreck and cracked her pelvic bone.   The general hospital was clear accross town, but she knew the public hospital had to treat her even though she had no insurance.  

Anyway - I wonder what she would have said back then if someone made her buy insurance.     I won't call her out in front of her new friends, but I might PM her.

OK - back to your debate.

I seriously do not get this argument. Instead of some nameless faceless person in a corporate office, you want some nameless faceless government bureaucrat making the same decision. You can make up what ever "nameless faceless" boogy man you want, but it does not hold water.

Corporations have been run for some time now. Yes the goal is to be profitable, and to increase their shareholders profits. Those shareholders invested their money into the company so it can grow and do the business it is doing in the first place. The whole point is to grow and be profitable... but the catch is the only way to do that is to put out a good product. A cost effective high value product. With proper checks in place, those companies that are shady or do not do right go out of business. The model is not broke.

The Government bureaucrat model is broke. They have no checks. Oh ya, some elected official is supposed to have some control at some point, but other than that, a bureaucrats only job is to grow his department. If he cuts his budget then he shrinks his power and control. Then he can't move on to bigger departments. If he does not spend all his money, then he gets less next year. There is no oversight, not in the real world. They don't have to worry about putting out a superior product, because there is no competition. There is waste and abuse. So there is no free lunch in that area either.

Obviously to run government enterprises you have to have government agencies. The IRS and Social security are not private companies and have no private counter part. But health care, higher education, or any other private sector endeavor is not better off being run by the government. It just isn't.