Supreme Court ObamaCare

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: we would have a majority of our senior population on medicaid if it were not for medicare. Are you also against medicaid? If so, what is your solution to rising health care costs and getting old? The only alternative I see is to just let them die because they cannot pay for health care. Of course the hospitals would be full since they cannot turn anyone away and then the hospitals become a holding area for sick and poor to die. Then where would everyone else go? and I can only imagine what all those "free services" would cost everyone else. That is not a solution.

Why is it that hospitals can't turn anyone away Wily? This is just another instance of the federal government creating a problem with their efforts that they then attempt to solve by creating a different problem that becomes a never ending effort to put all power of governance into the hands of the federal government. I have some disturbing news for you Wily, there is no cure for getting old and even an unlimited amount of money spent on their health care will not prevent the inevitability of their death - ain't none of us getting out of here alive.

If you want me to suggest an alternative, I am more than happy to do so. Let the States decide how they wish to deal with the elderly citizens of their state and leave the general government out of it. I am not responsible for the elderly citizens of New York or Florida anymore than I am responsible for the elderly citizens of Canada - the governments in each of these locations are foreign to my own and it is not for me to decide how, nor incur the cost of providing, the elderly in any of them with care. I am confident that the citizens of this state are more than capable of devising a means to provide for the care of their elderly citizens at a reasonable cost to the rest of the state's citizens without involving the purses of the rest of the union's citizens. I, personally, think both Medicare and Medicaid are unnecessary entanglements with the federal government for the citizens of Colorado. I would be much more amenable to being taxed by the government of my state to provide services for my fellow citizens than I am to being taxed by the general government to provide services for all the citizens of the union. I not only think that the cost would be less overall, I think the quality of care would be greater overall. I do not think that a government located in a distant location is nearly as capable of determining what is best for the citizens of Colorado as the government of Colorado is. I think the closer to home our taxes are levied and collected, the more accountable to the people who are paying the taxes the government spending them is.

I personally believe it should be unconstitutional for the government to force individuals to purchase products from private companies. Not that I'm saying that's how I think that is how the court will rule on this. Due to how they may view previous court rulings, I think it could go either way and I'm prepared to live with it if I have to. The health care law's current proposed penalty for not having insurance is a joke, though. It's much too low to force people to get insurance, and the IRS was given virtually no powers to collect it anyway (other than taking it from a refund check, but a person could avoid that pretty easily).

pineinthegrass wrote: I personally believe it should be unconstitutional for the government to force individuals to purchase products from private companies. Not that I'm saying that's how I think that is how the court will rule on this. Do to how they may view previous court rulings, I think it could go either way and I'm prepared to live with it if I have to. The health care law's current proposed penalty for not having insurance is a joke, though. It's much too low to force people to get insurance, and the IRS was given virtually no powers to collect it anyway (other than taking it from a refund check, but a person could avoid that pretty easily).

Private companies? Some say Obama wouldn't mind losing on this point so he could then have a reason to create a single payer system. And people would be forced to buy health insurance from the Feds if they couldn't find a decent policy otherwise.

FredHayek wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: I personally believe it should be unconstitutional for the government to force individuals to purchase products from private companies. Not that I'm saying that's how I think that is how the court will rule on this. Do to how they may view previous court rulings, I think it could go either way and I'm prepared to live with it if I have to. The health care law's current proposed penalty for not having insurance is a joke, though. It's much too low to force people to get insurance, and the IRS was given virtually no powers to collect it anyway (other than taking it from a refund check, but a person could avoid that pretty easily).

Private companies? Some say Obama wouldn't mind losing on this point so he could then have a reason to create a single payer system. And people would be forced to buy health insurance from the Feds if they couldn't find a decent policy otherwise.

Not arguing with that. I think once people see costs and taxes continue to escalate under Obamacare then the Dems will offer a "solution" to the mess they created; single payer.

It sounds like today they argued it is a penalty, tomorrow it will be argued a tax. LOL The Judge was laughing at the Justice Dept. Lawyer.

And Pine is correct, the penalties are too small. Small businesses can get off cheaper by dumping people onto the exchanges. I doubt Congress will be able to agree to change the penalties either. And individuals can just not pay it.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: ... And shove your "ponzi-scheme.".....

Never said it was a "Ponzi-scheme" - but it is a "Ponzi based" scheme

Really?... You never said that?... (Or should I take that to mean that the "operative/slide-by" word is the word "today"?) Funny, I don't see the word "based" in there....

PrintSmith wrote: That latter is the same mechanism used to fund Ponzi schemes whereby the money from the newest investors is used to fund the benefits paid to the earlier investors. There is a reason that Ponzi schemes are illegal and why it was thought to be a good idea to fund the retirements and health needs of seniors in this nation upon this same principle defies any attempt at reason or common sense.

PrintSmith wrote: Seems like a much better system, at least on paper, than the collective salvation ponzi scheme the government is currently running, doesn't it?

PrintSmith wrote: I have never said that the Social Security Ponzi scheme is unconstitutional.

PrintSmith wrote: I would be willing to get back every nickel of money that the Social Security ponzi scheme has taken from my and my employers to date,

Gee, I found those just on the first page of hits... THere were many more...

i.e., You're a liar.

FredHayek wrote:

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: we would have a majority of our senior population on medicaid if it were not for medicare. Are you also against medicaid? If so, what is your solution to rising health care costs and getting old? The only alternative I see is to just let them die because they cannot pay for health care. Of course the hospitals would be full since they cannot turn anyone away and then the hospitals become a holding area for sick and poor to die. Then where would everyone else go? and I can only imagine what all those "free services" would cost everyone else. That is not a solution.

Of course, we have to do something for our elders, but what percentage of the budget should it be, 50%? 90%? At the current rate health care costs are climbing, it is out of control. And how many times do we see cases where 90% of the health care money spent on the elderly is the last six months of thier life, and it is a poor quality life.

I just read about living wills and health care, and a higher rate of health care professionals resist excessive measures to keep themselves alive versus the general population. Maybe they are more aware of end of life issues since they see it so much more often. Or they realize so much of what they do is expensive and of limited benefit.

Back on topic: Looks like the Supremes are not going to duck on any of the issues of Obamacare. Good for them, would be much easier for them to kick the can down the road on the tax issue like Pelosi wanted them to.

agreed on health care costs. Studies show that the majority of health care costs come at the end of life "care". All for the sake of another 2 or 3 weeks left of life in a hospital bed... all the tests, all the "treatments", all the excess at end of life. All the guilt felt by family members IF they didn't do EVERYTHING they could. A sensible discussion and living will could prevent these unnecessary "heroics". This was attempted to be talked about in the 2008 elections, but the Sarah Palins of the world decided it would make for good political fodder to call it "death panels". Me? I don't want to be here a day longer than I am enjoying being here. When it gets to the point where life is laying in bed waiting to die, I want the blue pill.

Agree that the "death panel" arguement doesn't help things. It only makes sense to have an end of life process where people can made educated decisions during a loved ones final days.

Don't mean to bump any of the fire threads, but today's SC testimony and questions seem to cast new doubt on the mandate being ruled constitutional. I now think it loses 5-4, changing my vote. Lots of skepticism from at least 4 of the Judges. Kennedy seems to be the swing vote that could decide it, and he was both skeptical and understanding at times.

As it should - the federal government doesn't have the authority, delegated or otherwise, to force a citizen to sign a contract of any kind. Next up, whether the rest of the law can be severed from the mandate or whether the mandate is so central to the rest of the law that the whole thing has to go.

My vote is that SCOTUS will rule they have jurisdiction to decide the matter, that the individual mandate is beyond any power possessed by the general government and that the mandate is so central to the rest of the law that none of it survives.