By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

Mr Khan on 24 June 2012
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:


Which means you think the consitution should be changed with the times.

Which means you think things that were previously unconsitutional should be made constitutional with the times.

Which means you think judges should make things suddenly constituional that wasn't constiutiotnal when needed.

Which means my point completely stands that this is unconstituional, but you want it to be cosnitutional because you think it's needed now.

Which makes my point for me again.

 

Even though it clearly isn't something that's needed since there are other legislative measures out there that just aren't being used.  Again, just because congress might not want to try single payer healthcare coverage for "50 years" doesn't mean that's not a valid option for congress.

It's just oen they refuse to execute.

I'm just opposed to the "Constructionist" view of things, in that the document is only as strong as it is practically applicable, and the courts have a history of thinking that way, as with the World War I era sedition laws (which i'm not cool with, but still...). The WWI laws were clearly a violation of the letter of the first amendment, but less so with the spirit of it because of the increased role of propaganda and the potential for enemy spies and saboteurs that came with the early 20th century.


You aren't even really making a living document arguement though, your saying congress won't regulate something harder one way, by chocie... so therefore we have to give them the power to regulate something more another way, so they'll do it. 

That's completely asinine.

Just tell the truth.  You think this law should exist.  No matter what the constituion says, and therefore would be happy if it was ruled consitutional even if there was a specific ammendment ruling it unconstituional, and would think that was the right call because you think it's the right call for the times.

Aka, you think anything in the consitution that you deem harmful for the country isn't valid.

No, because if there were a clear reason why this was unconstitutional, then... there would be a clear reason it was unconstitutional. The only thing i'm seeing in this whole process is politics, with right-wing states making up some legal arguments and pitching it at the courts. It isn't clear, and because it isn't clear and it's a good thing to have, it should go through. When in doubt, go with what's right.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
thismeintiel on 24 June 2012
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

Stretching the truth for a good cause still amounts to a net positive. Another acceptable practice is making fair statistics that counter your policies into lies, just as long as the right people are doing it for the right ends.

Deontology, bitches.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're really a leftist or a parody of one.

Lol, sadly he is a true one.  That's how people on the left think.  "Lying is ok if it gets you what you want in the end."  The ends justify the means kinda thing.  Well, unless it's someone on the right. Then it's time to hold hearings and hang up the noose.  Hypocrisy at its finest. 



 

richardhutnik on 24 June 2012
xwan said:
I'm a practicing physician, i can tell you that alot of patients will have insurance but they will have a hard time seeing a doctor; waiting and referral will be long; there will be more E.R. visits but this time these will be "paid" E.R. visits and not "Cash Patients" (like now) which just means they won't pay. Reimbursement for Medicaid/Medical, Medicare needs to be increased to doctors; we have been getting alot of IOU from the government and this makes us not want to deal with Medi/Medi patients because we are not paid and sometimes they are 80% of the outpatient practice.

Look, everyone needs coverage, just like everyone needs Car insurance in California to legally drive. Because your health puts everyone else at risk because u get dx with cancer and needs a million dollar work up with repeat CT, Radiation, Chemo, and then of course most patients end up dying anyways, whos going to pay for the care? All you individualistic people who does not support health insurance for everyone will be paying.

The cycle repeats itself, cut the middle man (insurance company), have an unified payer, increase reimbursement, increase residency slots and medical school in the U.S. to prepare to the increasing wave of elderly patients.

Actually, not everyone would argue everyone needs coverage and people pay.  There are people around the Internet, on forums like this that will argue that people have every right to not have coverage, and can risk dying by not having any.   They may argue that everyone has health care in the form of emergency rooms.  But, I would argue that, if you don't want to make sure everyone is covered, emergency rooms could also, for financial reasons, be able to refuse who they feel they can't treat.  If people die, that is the price of freedom.



Kasz216 on 24 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Which means you think the consitution should be changed with the times.

Which means you think things that were previously unconsitutional should be made constitutional with the times.

Which means you think judges should make things suddenly constituional that wasn't constiutiotnal when needed.

Which means my point completely stands that this is unconstituional, but you want it to be cosnitutional because you think it's needed now.

Which makes my point for me again.

 

Even though it clearly isn't something that's needed since there are other legislative measures out there that just aren't being used.  Again, just because congress might not want to try single payer healthcare coverage for "50 years" doesn't mean that's not a valid option for congress.

It's just oen they refuse to execute.

I'm just opposed to the "Constructionist" view of things, in that the document is only as strong as it is practically applicable, and the courts have a history of thinking that way, as with the World War I era sedition laws (which i'm not cool with, but still...). The WWI laws were clearly a violation of the letter of the first amendment, but less so with the spirit of it because of the increased role of propaganda and the potential for enemy spies and saboteurs that came with the early 20th century.


You aren't even really making a living document arguement though, your saying congress won't regulate something harder one way, by chocie... so therefore we have to give them the power to regulate something more another way, so they'll do it. 

That's completely asinine.

Just tell the truth.  You think this law should exist.  No matter what the constituion says, and therefore would be happy if it was ruled consitutional even if there was a specific ammendment ruling it unconstituional, and would think that was the right call because you think it's the right call for the times.

Aka, you think anything in the consitution that you deem harmful for the country isn't valid.

No, because if there were a clear reason why this was unconstitutional, then... there would be a clear reason it was unconstitutional. The only thing i'm seeing in this whole process is politics, with right-wing states making up some legal arguments and pitching it at the courts. It isn't clear, and because it isn't clear and it's a good thing to have, it should go through. When in doubt, go with what's right.

Except... it is clear.

like you said.  The 10th ammendment.

The ability to force people to do something for the good of everyone is called "Police Power"

which has been ruled a power of the state many times in Supreme Court Precdence.

In another case of "Good idea but unconsitutional"

See United States V Morrison.

Where very specifically, "Police Power" was refused on the basis that sexually assaulted women would need healthcare was not sufficent to invoke the commerce clause due to sexual assault not being an economic act.

Not buying health insurance is NOT a direct economic act.


Congress can not, by precedent, regulate things that are not direct economic actions.

Also United States vs Lopez

The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

and that's all they can regulate.

So there you go... precedence of it being unconstituional.



richardhutnik on 24 June 2012

One angle on the healthcare debate, as I see it, would be that individuals who push for allowing buying health coverage across state lines, then turn healthcare into interstate commerce. The moment it becomes interstate commerce, then the government can get involved. The federal government then can require people either have their own health insurance or sign up for government offered health insurance, if the state doesn't do it. This could be done by having people who don't own insurance (opt-out) be signed up in Medicaid and have their taxes adjusted accordingly.

An issue now is that health care doesn't fall under interstate commerce.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 June 2012
richardhutnik said:
One angle on the healthcare debate, as I see it, would be that individuals who push for allowing buying health coverage across state lines, then turn healthcare into interstate commerce. The moment it becomes interstate commerce, then the government can get involved. The federal government then can require people either have their own health insurance or sign up for government offered health insurance, if the state doesn't do it. This could be done by having people who don't own insurance (opt-out) be signed up in Medicaid and have their taxes adjusted accordingly.

An issue now is that health care doesn't fall under interstate commerce.

No.  Healthcare does fall under interstate commerce.  That was never challenged at the hearing.

The government already regulates healthcare at a national level.

The issue is that inaction =/= action... and the government has no power to force commerce... that is a power reserved by the state.  Hence why whenever the federal government wanted a law like that.  Like say car insurance.  Instead of passing said law they blackmailed states into it.

Like say "You have to pass a mandatory car isurance law, or you won't get any highway tax funds".



Mr Khan on 24 June 2012
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Which means you think the consitution should be changed with the times.

Which means you think things that were previously unconsitutional should be made constitutional with the times.

Which means you think judges should make things suddenly constituional that wasn't constiutiotnal when needed.

Which means my point completely stands that this is unconstituional, but you want it to be cosnitutional because you think it's needed now.

Which makes my point for me again.

 

Even though it clearly isn't something that's needed since there are other legislative measures out there that just aren't being used.  Again, just because congress might not want to try single payer healthcare coverage for "50 years" doesn't mean that's not a valid option for congress.

It's just oen they refuse to execute.

I'm just opposed to the "Constructionist" view of things, in that the document is only as strong as it is practically applicable, and the courts have a history of thinking that way, as with the World War I era sedition laws (which i'm not cool with, but still...). The WWI laws were clearly a violation of the letter of the first amendment, but less so with the spirit of it because of the increased role of propaganda and the potential for enemy spies and saboteurs that came with the early 20th century.


You aren't even really making a living document arguement though, your saying congress won't regulate something harder one way, by chocie... so therefore we have to give them the power to regulate something more another way, so they'll do it. 

That's completely asinine.

Just tell the truth.  You think this law should exist.  No matter what the constituion says, and therefore would be happy if it was ruled consitutional even if there was a specific ammendment ruling it unconstituional, and would think that was the right call because you think it's the right call for the times.

Aka, you think anything in the consitution that you deem harmful for the country isn't valid.

No, because if there were a clear reason why this was unconstitutional, then... there would be a clear reason it was unconstitutional. The only thing i'm seeing in this whole process is politics, with right-wing states making up some legal arguments and pitching it at the courts. It isn't clear, and because it isn't clear and it's a good thing to have, it should go through. When in doubt, go with what's right.

Except... it is clear.

like you said.  The 10th ammendment.

The ability to force people to do something for the good of everyone is called "Police Power"

which has been ruled a power of the state many times in Supreme Court Precdence.

In another case of "Good idea but unconsitutional"

See United States V Morrison.

Where very specifically, "Police Power" was refused on the basis that sexually assaulted women would need healthcare was not sufficent to invoke the commerce clause due to sexual assault not being an economic act.

Not buying health insurance is NOT a direct economic act.


Congress can not, by precedent, regulate things that are not direct economic actions.

Also United States vs Lopez

The Lopez court stated that Congress may regulate (1) use of the channels of interstate commerce, (2) the "instrumentalities" (for example, vehicles) used in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

and that's all they can regulate.

So there you go... precedence of it being unconstituional.

So it then comes down to: is a failure to act the same thing as an act? It's clear that the failure to purchase health insurance, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce (what is it, 50 million uninsured? Has to amount for something).

Hell, if anything, the slippery slope here would be that overturning ACA could open the door to wiping out all sorts of negligence laws because hey "the government can't punish me for not doing stuff."



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

xwan on 24 June 2012
curtisghall said:
xwan said:
It is NOT a right not have insurance. If you have no insurance you come to the ER we still have to treat you and pay ur bills. If we are allowed to be unethical what we should do is, if you come to the ER and you have no insurance you just get turned away. It is YOUR CHOICE for not getting insurance, u can just die in front of the hospital then. Does this make sense? Why should rest of the population pay for those who CHOOSES not to get coverage?

And no, the starting salary for PCP in the US is not 125k, i get pay 200k as an internal medicine hospitalist in a subsurban area in California. Family medicine probably 150k or so. 125 maybe AFTER all the tax is about right though.

The amount of schooling we go through; it does not make sense to pay doctors less because sooner or later u will have no doctors then price will again have to go up. We come out of med school with 200+ k of debt. This being compounded during residency.

Do people realize how much training you have to go through to be qualified?

College standard (usually science major) 4 yrs (Loans)
Medical School 4 years (Loans and living expenses)
Residency 3-7 years depending on specialities (80 hour work week on 50k stipend, with monthly repaymdent about 2000, so I was negative salary for a few months if ur car breaks or u need to fix some things to shell out the bill).

We lose about 10 years of productivity and rack up 200k of debt for being a doctor, it is NOT all glamor. it is hard work.


this problem with healthcare is that there are people who can't afford it and healthcare doesn't cover enough coverage, if you decide not to have healthcare then you would have a debt to pay when going to the er, i went to the er without insurance, but i had to do is make monthly payments to the hospital. which was cheaper than even having insurance, why not have the healthcare give us at least some real coverage if they are going to force it down out throats, and the doctors are scamming out the insurance with outrages charges making it hard for insurances companies, with obamacare employers are force to charge even more for health benefits without giving out more coverage, leaving people stuck in medical debt,

There is obviously a problem with the healthcare system but obamacare is not the answer and it's unconstitutional, call me crazy but i don't want to waste my money on health insurance if it's not going to prevent me from oweing medical bills, kinda defeats the purpose

If everyone has insurance, ur premium will be lowered, because you have healthier population paying for a smaller protion that maybe sick.

Ya sure, ur 'quick visit' to the ER can be paid monthly, what if you get into a car accident and needs to spend a month in the ICU, how are you going to pay for that? ICU stay being like 4 thousand USD PER DAY. Not including doctor's fee, CT scans, MRIs, anxillary staffs?



Plezbo on 24 June 2012

America won't fail as fast, that is what will happen.



xwan on 24 June 2012

And plus, who's going to pay if you die in the ICU if u have no insurance? the tax payer, ME,us!! So you not having insurance is placing a burden on society. Like i said, this society does not allow us to be unethical, or else, those without insurance or enough cash should go and die somewhere...

Those who cannot afford has MediCal or MediCaid (in other states), most people who does NOT have insurance can actually AFFORD it.