A stab of sadness hits me when I see them, those posters advertising a supper or some other fundraiser for a sick child needing a bone marrow transplant, or a parent who needs surgery.
My religion teaches that to save one life is to save the entire world. Each of these lives holds a place in their families and communities and, if lost, leaves a hole not easily healed.
No one knows when tragedy will strike but strike it will. Lack of insurance coverage delays diagnosis, monitoring and treatment, and can create devastating effects for the 53 million uninsured.
And when accidents and illness descend, financial stress is all too often a huge burden, with over 60 percent of bankruptcies in our country due to medical bills. Meanwhile, everyone bears the financial burdens of a health care system that delivers emergency care to the uninsured but not less expensive ongoing care. Each year, $60 billion in uncovered costs are passed along, raising premium costs by $1,000 per family with insurance.
Critics, untroubled by a lack of health care, spread untruths about the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). A new endlessly repeated lie is that the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, now estimates Obamacare costs will be far higher than originally projected. But it’s actually the opposite, with CBO Publication 43104 reporting, “The estimated net cost of the insurance coverage provisions is smaller than estimated in March 2011 … about $50 billion less” for the same 10-year period.
Other critics fret about the freedom of employers to tell employees what health insurance should cover. If employers have this right, your boss’s religious principles should be able to dictate how you spend your salary, restricting what food you buy and movies you watch. Since contraception lowers health care costs, with pregnancy and birth far more expensive than birth control, there’s no financial rationale. And what about employees’ freedom?
Considering the Heritage Foundation invented the market-oriented health policy model of an individual mandate, along with subsidies for the uninsured and insurance exchanges, it’s hard to find a logical, nonpolitical reason for why conservatives now consider these threats to freedom.
Moreover, opponents’ assurance that the Affordable Care Act is clearly unconstitutional is not widely shared by legal experts. Again, the opposite prevails. In a poll of experts by the American Bar Association, 85 percent believe the law will be upheld completely and 15 percent think just part of it will be struck down. Why? Congress has the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, health care’s economic effect is clear and precedents go back to the 1941 case Wickard v. Filburn.
Reagan appointee Judge Silberman, who has received awards from the conservative Federalist Society, wrote in upholding the ACA, “the health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care services.” The mandate limits people’s choices “no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race.”
This week the Supreme Court is hearing challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Without a well-tuned crystal ball, one can’t predict what the court will do. Lately it has been comfortable with upending accretions of legal precedent, as in the Citizens United case on campaign finance laws. Purportedly conservative judges have been quite activist, discarding laws passed by democratically elected officials.
Whatever the court decides, the law, however imperfect, marks the promise of escaping some human-caused tragedies. Overturned or retained, health needs and health care policy and politics will remain.
Several years ago, my dear friends’ teenage daughter died from leukemia. Her parents will never be the same, but even as their child fought to recover, they and their friends and relatives did not have to go hat in hand to raise money.
No American should suffer the pain that comes from care delayed or denied due to financial circumstances. Obamacare, like every policy, is not perfect. But surely the child whose face shines forth from a poster tacked on a bulletin board deserves every chance for medical care that might give her a full life.
Amy Fried is a professor of political science at the University of Maine. You can follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/ASFried and on her blog, pollways.com.
Going to fix your last paragraph for you. I don’t have time to fix it all. I have to work for a living…
No American should suffer the pain that comes from loss of freedom or be denied choice in paying for their own health care however they see fit, under any circumstances. Obamacare, like every freedom grabbing policy, is not perfect. But surely the child whose future shines forth with a hope of freedom, hopes tacked on a document called the U.S. Constitution deserves every chance for the liberty that might give him or her a full life.
There, all fixed, no need to thank me. :-)
As the author of the piece, I do not accept your edits. :}
I do, however, ask these questions about freedom:
How about the freedom to live because the child’s parents can get that child a bone marrow transplant or lupus treatment? There are at least 50,000 preventable deaths in the U.S. every year because of lack of health care. And there are many more people who grieve from those losses, as well as people who cannot live fully due to untreated and often undiagnosed illnesses or because they do not get rehabilitation services. These are real human beings with moral standing. To lose one life is to lose the whole world.
Perhaps some would feel comfortable telling someone whose loved one died because they could not afford treatment that it was ok because they died free. I would not.
Amy, I agree with your essay 100%, but I would like to know your source for the “$1,000 per family” figure. From my experience it cannot be true, at least not the way it reads. My husband and I have been uninsured for 10 years and we have paid 100% of our health care expenses out of pocket, unlike private insurers who pay a 65% negotiated rate, or Medicaid / Medicare, which pays a 50% negotiated rate. I’m sure we’re not much different from most US Citizens who are unable to afford private insurance.
So in reality, many of the 57 million uninsured are paying ever higher rates because of the hundreds of millions of insured Americans who get by on negotiated rates. Also, uninsured people who become seriously ill quickly become impoverished and thus eligible for Medicaid, so are you including people on Medicaid as “uninsured”?
If I understand your question correctly, I believe the $1,000 refers to the cost shifting that takes place due to both uninsured and the low reimbursement rates for medicare/medicaid. In the state of Maine hospitals have struggled for years with the state’s failure to reimburse them for claims in a timely manner; the amount currently owed to hospitals in Maine runs into the millions of dollars.
I too have a problem with hospitals charging cash customers (uninsured) full list prices when the bulk of their services are provided at negotiated rates. Transparency in hospital pricing is an idea whose time has come.
Thanks, but it isn’t just Medicare/Medicaid that pay low reimbursement rates. Private insurers also pay only 50 – 65% of “reasonable and customary charges.”
Back in November, T.R. Reid gave a few talks around Maine about his book, “The Healing of America,” which compares health systems around the world. In a number of countries, the rates are posted and do not vary no matter where you are. The same procedure has the same cost.
I can’t put my finger on the $1000/family figure right now but I have seen it multiple times and did have a cite before I wrote the column.
By the way, I have been thinking of hosting a book discussion group at my blog (www.pollways.com) after the semester is done regarding “The Healing of America.” Any interest in participating?
Would you cite the $1,000/family figure please? It erroneously gives uninsured folks a bad name, because we are the only class paying the full cost of our health care. Most of us are not costing anyone anything.
And what happens when you get a cancer diagnosis? Do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars put away to pay your bill?
Kathy, this isn’t by choice. And your “what if” is only that. If I had a chronic illness I would already qualify for Medicaid. This emphasis on the uninsured is deceptive to say the least. Health care services that go unpaid for by people who don’t carry insurance are a tiny fraction of the overall cost of health care in the U.S.
Something like 19% of the U.S. population carries no insurance because they can’t afford it. Most people who are uninsured don’t even use health services. Looking at the charts, you can see that virtually all of the people who have health insurance are covered either by their employer or the government. Something like only 2% of the population can afford a private, individual plan, basically shelling out $15,000/year for nothing, because the deductibles are so high. (http://www.kaiseredu.org/Tutorials-and-Presentations/Overview-of-the-Uninsured.aspx)
Meanwhile, private health insurers already add 30% to the overall cost of health care, taking that as their own profit. Then, when they deign to pay a claim, they pay only 65% of the cost. In addition, the taxpayers – myself included – underwrite the cost of Medicare and Medicaid for hundreds of millions of Americans. Public insurance programs cover a much higher percentage of claims, but reimburse at only 50% of the cost.
So there is no way that health care services for 19% of the population, most of whom don’t even use health care – is costing “the insured” $1,000 per family. That’s ludicrous when private insurers are costing everyone upwards of $15,000 / year in premiums alone. When I had employer-provided insurance 10 years ago, the combined cost for me and my employer was $9,800 a year, with each family member having a $1,200 deductible. Not one of us exceeded the deductibles in any given year. Now that I no longer have insurance, my spouse and I pay 100% of our medical costs out of pocket, unlike the other 80% of the U.S. population.
That’s EXACTLY why we passed the Affordable Care Act, Obama Cares! When it goes into effect, you will get a subsidy to purchase insurance, on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay. There will also be state insurance exchanges where you can shop for less expensive plans.
That’s just one of the many reasons we have to stop the Republicans from repealing a plan that they originally proposed, but now attack, because Obama got it passed.
I’m all for ACA, except I think the individual mandate should have been expanded Medicaid. I won’t be affected by the mandate anyway because of my income. Very, very few people will. I highly doubt there is any significant percentage of the population that actually chooses to go without health insurance. It is the private insurance industry that is ripping you off blind, not the uninsured.
I agree that expanded Medicaid, or Medicare-for-All, or something like Britan’s National health, would have been better. President Obama did what was politically possible, rather than waiting for something that was perfect but couldn’t get passed in Congress.
Sorry, but I haven’t had time to post a citation. I believe I got it from the Kaiser Foundation, which is a great source on health care. They do and also also aggregate research.
Thanks, I am very familiar with the Kaiser Family Foundation website. They do great work. I am unable to find that statistic there, however.
The $1,000 per year figure came from a congressional study. I saw that figure earlier today on a NPR site, but I can’t find it now.
Here’s the issue: There is no such thing as “free.” And everyone eventually gets old, gets injured, or gets sick. Most medical bills inevitably become much larger than an uninsured person can possibly pay. Someone I know recently became paralyzed from guillan-barre syndrome and spent three months in the hospital and rehabilitation centers. She had multiple blood transfusions and other treatments. Her treatment cost tens of thousands of dollars, maybe more than that. That’s a lot more money than I expect you would be able to afford to pay for if you don’t have insurance.
So the hospital has to charge someone if the person with a serious injury or illness has no insurance. They will charge me for your lack of insurance. So that limits my freedom.
So I pay more for my insurance because you don’t have any. And I pay more at the hospital and doctor’s office in order to make up for the money they lose by treating uninsured people.
You may want to think you are not costing anyone anything, but I pay more so you can be uninsured.
That is factually untrue. As a private insurance policy holder, your health care is being subsidized by your employer and by me, the uninsured person who pays 100% of their health care costs. We all get taxed for that 35% that your insurer doesn’t pay, and for the 50% that Medicaid / Medicare doesn’t pay. That means on average that 43% of health care services used by people who are insured – 80% of the population – are not being paid. Remember, there are four times as many insured than uninsured. So I am subsidizing you, and I get zero in return. Not only that, because you are insured, you naturally use more services than I do.
If you get cancer or lupus or break your neck in an accident, or many many other possibilities, I will subsidize your inability to make the paymnents of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I pay more so that people like you can be uninsured.
But the good news is that if you are uninsured because you genuinely can’t afford it, Obama Cares enough (when it goes into effect in 2014) to provide a subsidy for you on a sliding scale to help you get insurance, and sets up exchanges where you can get a better price.
Okay, I’m almost done beating this dead horse, but you don’t seem to understand that what you’re saying about my *potential* healthcare needs is only a big IF. Pretty soon I’ll be old enough for Medicare, so if I make it then your point will be moot. Most of the people who make up the uninsured population — I will say it again — do not use health care services. You are in the “insurance mindset” that consists only of “what if,” not “what is.” You can’t say that you’re paying for *my* health care, because you aren’t. But as a health care consumer and a taxpayer, I am in fact paying for yours, and for everyone who receives Medicare and Medicaid.
Most of us who are uninsured and do use health care services manage just fine paying out of pocket.
Yes, it may indeed be a dead horse. I’m just saying that we all get old or sick or injured eventually. When you and I get to Medicare we will have something a bit more “socialist” like the Canadians and English and French do. I don’t begrudge you for being uninsured if you genuinely can’t afford it. That’s something I hope Obama Cares will help with.
Might I have hit a nerve? Listen, I’m with you on people who need health care getting it. We have numerous charity care systems, state and federally funded programs. We have free care, charity care, medicare, medicaid, numerous clinics, specialty hospitals,etc.
But we also have our Constitution, and a deep seated belief that as Americans we are free.
What I read in your column is an absolutely willingness, almost an eagerness to throw away that freedom for an ideal that the PPACA will never achieve.
Your response below mine, with the straw man argument that perhaps “some would feel comfortable telling someone whose loved one died because they could not afford treatment that it was ok because they died free” is nothing more than the typical “shame and silence” argument that liberals make when they want to pursue something that is fundamentally wrong and they wish to silence dissent.
I for one believe that there is a way for America to be a country that both takes care of those who truly need it and can’t afford care and one that respects the Constitutional rights of it’s citizens.
I happen to believe, unlike you, that this will require the great people of this country to enter into a moral contract with one another, not a forced contract forced by the state.
Because of this clumsy effort by the Obama administration and the recent Democratic majority to wield the coercive force of the government in a blatantly unconstitutional manner, this attempt is doomed to fail.
A moral contract with each other? What does that look like? If it’s voluntary charity, well, that hasn’t yielded universal coverage. It leaves out actual human beings who suffer and die; that’s reality, not a straw man argument.
Obviously the Supreme Court may decide that the mandate is not constitutional. We will have to wait and see. It is instructive, however, that so many conservative jurists think it is perfectly constitutional. I quoted Silberman but there are many more. This implies that it is not as clear cut as you, concernedinmaine207, believe.
What the Obama administration should have done was to expand Medicare. That is certainly constitutional. In addition, it has far more popular support than the mandate-subsidies-exchange model, which was developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and adopted by Governor Romney.
One irony is that if the mandate goes down, so do Republican plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare.
Not if Social Security is controlled by the INDIVIDUAL…
Ah, now there’s a good way to break what ain’t broken.
expanding Medicare to cover the entire population? Or just a larger portion of it? Medicare really only survives because it covers a minority of the population while collecting the tax to pay for it from the majority of the population. I don’t see a model in which that type of tax could be raised. Medicare costs are already unsustainable.
Yet, if we get rid of Obama’s capitalist health plan, “Obama Cares,” a more socialist Medicare-for-All is the only option — unless we prefer today’s semi-anarchistic rationing of health care where the rich get good coverage and the poor are left to fend for themselves.
Whatever happened to the “compassionate conservatives” who proposed the individual mandate in the first place? Is there no compassion among today’s conservatives?
Eliminate the private insurers and go into a national health care plan like Medicare and the funds that were previously being passed through the hands of the Insurance industry would be your source. You could call it a tax. You could also call the moneys that private and government employers pay to insurance companies a tax on employers.
The huge majority of people in this country that aer currently covered by health insurance, get their insurance as part of their pay in the form of a benefits package. The employer pays that cost as part of the cost of doing business. This also gives them a deductable off their taxes. Which translates that Joe the Tax Payer makes up for these lost tax revenues.
What Romney did was constitutional. What Obama did is not.
Let’s keep it really, really simple. No amount of horrible sob stories changes anything. This law is unconstitutional.
No, it isn’t.
Of course, we have a Supreme Court packed with activist conservative Republicans, so we’ll see what happens.
You are willing to give up your own freedom, and more to the point, take freedom away from others for what you believe is a public good. Following this logic there is absolutely nothing that government would not be allowed to tell people to do or prohibit people from doing all in the name of the public good.
I agree that everyone having insurance, (actually health care since the very concept of what insurance consists of is thrown out the window), is a good thing and a goal to be advocated for. But the price of making that health care an entitlement, in effect decreasing freedom from every one, is not worth it in the long run.
I have no problem with you personally believing the way you do. That is the definition of freedom. But I do have a problem with you believing that your belief system should be imposed on those who do not share it. You seem to refuse to understand how dangerous this is to every ones freedom over time.
Giving up freedom? How about the freedom of not having to pay for health care for the uninsured? Because that’s what we are doing. Doesn’t that interfere with my freedom?
You are right, the present system of being FORCED to pay for health care for the uninsured does interfere with your freedom. Now, ask yourself why that is happening and you find out the government passed a law. A “feel good” law with the best of intentions but where they never even thought about the negative unintended consequences.
They have created a new problem worse than the one they tried to cure. The same can be said of most entitlement programs.
I don’t like being “forced” to pay for my groceries, either. Will you feed me?
After all, you want me to pay for your medical care. Whether the government requires it or not, the hospital will have to charge me more because you were too self-absorbed to get insurance. You thought buying insurance limited your freedom, so you would limit my freedom by making me pay for your immaturity.
Please find one place where I asked you to pay for my health care.
That’s right, you just make up your own facts and assume things.
Apparently you haven’t thought this through. Let me explain it to you:
You say that want the freedom to NOT have insurance. But there is no “free.” So when you get old or sick or injured — and it is inevitable that one of the three will happen to you — and you seek medical care, someone will have to pay your bill.
Whether the government requires it or not, the hospital will treat you, because the doctors took a Hippocratic Oath to treat everyone. The doctors and hospitals will pass on the cost of your medical care to me.
You want to behave irresponsibly and not have insurance like a grown-up. But when you run up bills, I will have to pay. So you want to limit my freedom by making me pay for your irresponsibility.
It all follows logically from your stated desire to be irresponsible and not have insurance.
This reply really should have been for GovernmentIsthe problem! Sorry.
Someone will pay, one way or the other. The poor go to hospitals to get the most expensive care in the emergency room. The doctors have sworn a Hippocratic Oath to treat everyone (do you want them to abandon their oath?). So, whether the government requires it or not, the hospital will charge ME more because YOU were too poor, or in your case, too irresponsible, to have insurance. So you would interfere with my freedom to not pay your bills, just so you can have the freedom to be immature.
Thank you for an excellent column! There is so much misinformation out there about the Affordable Care Act. The right-wingers have come out with so much propaganda against these ideas that they themselves originally proposed! When the Heritage Foundation came up with the individual mandate it was a conservative idea that was supposed to save us from the socialist specter of “Medicare-for-All.” Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Republicans like Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney all put it forward as the Republican alternative to the Democrats’ plan. When Bill Clinton proposed his plan, the Republicans came up with two plans of their own called the “Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993” and the “Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994,” featuring the individual mandate, to counter Clinton’s plan.
The Republicans were in favor of the individual mandate until Obama became for it. Then the Republicans switched sides.
But without the individual mandate, the insurance companies (“capitalism”) won’t cover people with preexisting conditions, or people who are so sick that they’ve gone over the limit of their coverage. It is the individual mandate that makes Obama’s/Romney’s capitalist plan work. Without it the only alternatives are a socialist plan like Britain’s, or today’s rationing of health care where the rich get good coverage and the poor don’t.
Today’s right-wingers have no compassion. When the moderator at a Republican debate asked, should we let a sick man just die if he has no insurance, some members of the Republican audience cheered and others yelled “Yes!”
It’s not really true that Obama’s individual mandate is equal to what the Republicans proposed. Obama’s mandate leaves out some other important parts of the Republican plan, such as eliminating the tax free status of health insurance premiums in order to fund the plan. Democrats, backed by unions who tend to have expensive health plans, would not go along with the individual mandate, as proposed by the Republicans. I would object to the Republican mandate as well.
I understand that without compulsory participation, the risk of covering sick people cannot be compensated for by having healthy people pay in. My opposition to the ACA is not because I lack compassion. It is because I know we cannot afford to provide health care to all without instituting rationing. I also know that I would rather have my paycheck determine my ration (and my paycheck is not much) than to have a government bureaucracy determine my ration. In 2009, Massachusetts spent more per capita on health care than any other state–their mandate is not containing health care costs.
We need to look at ways to control healthcare costs before we find a way to get more people insured. Our medical models in this country are needlessly expensive. In addition, we have added so many coverage mandates to insurance that raise the cost of insurance to unaffordable levels.
We already have rationing. Poor people get second-class health care. The current rationing is a fact.
My American neice and her English husband, who lived many years in California and North Carolina, went back to England because of their superior health care system. He has injuries from a morotcycle accident decades ago, and he gets better medical care under the National Health than he did in the U.S. — and he gets free bus passes and other benefits. And England didn’t become a totalitarian nation just because they have the National Health plan. And their standard of living is comparable to ours. Yes, their taxes are a bit higher and they get more in return than we get — and they don’t have to buy health insurance.
Amy – where are we going to get the money to fund ObamaCare? – New taxes? Central bank of China? Are you OK with the fact that rates are predicted to rise 38% in indiv market because of ACA (Bureau of Ins, Gorman Report). Are you ok with the collapse of the private insurance market – or is that your aim?
Amy Fried assumes that Congress has the constitutional right to regulate commerce and cites the legal precedent of Wickard v. Filburn to back up her assertion. The problem the Supreme Court will struggle with is that at the moment there appears to be no” limiting principal” to the power of Congress to regulate anything and everything. The individual mandate is problematical for this very reason. Justice Kennedy is a deciding vote and he has made it clear that he is struggling with the notion that if the Individual Mandate passes muster with the Supreme Court there will be no limits to the Federal Government’s regulatory powers.
If the Obama Administration had opted impose a tax rather than go down the road of the individual mandate they wouldn’t be chewing their nails in court today.
If Obamacare is so great, then why can’t we opt out without being penalized?
Can you opt out of paying income tax without being penalized? Can you opt out of being a U.S. citizen without there being any consequences? If you drive a car, can you opt out of insurance? You will need health care some day, as everyone does. Do you plan to pay for it, or do you think I should have to pay for your health care?
When I was in college in the ’60s I had an anarchist friend who said the U.S. Constitution has no authority over us, because the Founding Fathers who signed it only bound themselves under it — since we have not signed the Constitution ourselves, it has no authority over us. You sound like him. Yet my anarchist friend, who moved to Alaska to get away from “the government,” hasn’t really gotten away from the laws (or the freedoms) of this country.
With freedom comes responsibility. It sounds like you want freedom WITHOUT responsibility.
There are a magnitude of difference between your examples and the examples posed by the Obama administration with this law. That is what the Supremes are trying to decide.
Good question this…
“So can the government
require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding
when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where
you are?” ——-Justice Roberts
Good answer this:
“We’re not stupid.” ~~~~~ Justice Scalia
The legal issue of the individual mandate is whether the power to regulate commerce includes the power to require commerce. I think you can require commerce of people who are going to be inevitably engaged in the commerce for health care, and that is also the administration’s position.
When you claim the “freedom” to behave irresponsibly and not purchase insurance when you can afford it, you inevitably transfer the cost to others and it undermines a regulatory regime. Whether the government requires the hospital to treat you or not, the hospital will treat you because doctors took a Hippocratic Oath.
So the hospital and the doctors have to charge someone. They will charge me for your health care costs, because you think you’re not part of society like everone else, or you are just too immature to behave responsibly and get insurance like a grown-up would.
So — here’s the crux of the matter — you are inevitably engaged in the commerce of health care; everyone gets sick or old or injured eventually. And so you are already in the commerce of health care. The government has the legal power to regulate commerce.
So just as they can require a driver to have automobile insurance, they can require you to have health insurance (because you are inevitably in the commerce of health care).
There is no “free.” If you are too immature to realize that you have a responsibility to provide yourself with insurance, someone will pay for your health care. You want me to pay for your health care. You would limit my freedom so you can behave immaturely.
The question is one of “creating commerce”. Washington missed that when preparing its case.
It was your argument that one justice reffered to as “talking points” and Scalia “We’re not stupid!!”
Looks like you are a bit upset today. The ACA we can only hope is dead and freedom may have dodged a bullet.
It’s true that the whining of right-wingers about not getting free health care is annoying me today. Nothng is free, and so if you can afford it but choose to be irresponsible enough to demand the freedom to not have insurance, I will wind up paying for you. You will limit my freedom. So yes, I think we are all a part of society, even if so many of today’s right-wingers think we are a bunch of unrelated individuals in an anarchistic world.
I believe in the Biblical admonition to be compassionate; I believe that we are our brother’s keeper. I know that the Right-wing rejects these Biblical principles in favor of Ayn Rand’s atheist Gospel of Greed, but I’m a bit old-fashioned, I guess.
I’m glad that Obama Cares, and cares enough to try to solve a health care problem that has damaged our economy with runaway costs, and has harmed the poor by delivering second-class treatment.
I don’t buy the silly idea that if the government can require you to have health insurance (and help you pay for it if you have a low income), just like it requires you to have auto insurance, that tomorrow morning we’ll all be sent to a Gulag in Siberia.
And so yes, I admit that I’m annoyed at the whiny right-wingers who don’t want to take responsibility for themselves, and want me to pay for their health care. Maybe tomorrow I’m be more cheerful.
Penzance I mostly agree with you, but the people who are whining are already insured, either by their employer or by the government. The number of people who would be affected by the individual mandate, i.e. those who are uninsured and can afford insurance but choose not to, is infinitesimal.
True. Thanks for the friendly word.
I’m not sure what your problem is. I pay my own way. In fact I pay the way for about 20 others as well. In my opinion, you and I have no right to compel others to pay however. The question yet to be settled is that by force of law can a new market be created and others forced to pay and therefore be forced to be regulated. Good question.
As for the high cost of insurance and healthcare the government has played no small role in the exploding costs. Giving the government free reign over us to continue their ways is no answer.
As for your gulag question… it may be a bit extreme… but if it can force a product on to an unwilling consumer what may they compel next? The governments attorneys were not able to answer that basic question. That should give you pause.
You begin, “I’m not sure what your problem is.”
Actually, I don’t have a problem with the reforms under Obama Cares, although I would have prefered something “socialist” like Britain’s National Health.
If you are insured, and plan to stay insured, I have no problem with you at all. And Obama Cares really won’t change anything for you. So what, exactly, is your problem?
My problem is with the people who say they want the freedom to be uninsured, so that when they go to the hospital to get “free” care, I will have to pay more — to pay for them.
And I do have a problem with the absurd suggestion that if we have to buy health insurance today, we will all be sent to a Siberian Gulag (with the English and Canadians, I suppose) tomorrow.
I already have to buy auto insurance, and I didn’t realize that made me a slave. I thought I was still a free man! How silly of me.
Wouldn’t it make things easier for you as an employer if you didn’t have to deal with health insurance as part of your employee benefits package? One that keeps creeping or leaping upward constantly?
I have said it in the past but I’ll repeat myself here. I have watched the cost of my company premiums jump every time the government expands their power in the insurance markets. They have given me no reason to believe that suddenly when they have additional control that it will put the brakes on the increasing cost.
You can bet if the government were to relieve me of the cost of insurance it is going to cost me a whole lot more. Its the way those things work. (btw the ACA has caused 33% of small employers with under 50 employees to consider dumping insurance for their employees entirely)
The government has ignored the real problem which is the cost of healthcare. They would have more gravitas with me if they didn’t put more cost on medical providers to pass on to me.
I believe the increase of costs from medical providers is being pushed by the same insurance industry that covers malpractice insurance. I would give a guess that most of the tests that are ordered are just to cover their butts in case of lawsuits. Ironic in that the insurance industry just likes to payoff the suits instead of fighting them.
Tort reform is a must and those who bring these suits should be forced to prove their cases before they receive a dime in compensation.
There are lots of things that are causing not only your premiums but everyones going through the roof. You may find that ACA might make it a smart move for you and your employees to look for a bigger pool of people, maybe other small employers, to form a bigger bargaining agreement with an insurance carrier.
The pool has already been put in place by Gov Lepage insurance redo and when my current agreement expires in July we will look at it as an option.
Hospitals do not treat poor people because of the Hippocratic Oath. They treat them because it is the law. A law passed because hospitals used to routinely refuse to treat people who could not pay for their services.
I needed a minor operation in the early 70’s. I made arrangements with the doctor and the hospital and took out a small loan ahead of time to pay for it since I had NO insurance. I did not even consider just showing up at the hospital looking for “free” care
Hospitals and doctors treated everyone BEFORE it was the law, and they would do it even if it wasn’t the law. Unlike you, they believe in compassion, not selfishness. If they believed in selfishness, they would have gone to work for Bain Capital, and would not have gone into a caring profession.
Yes, I, too, have paid for minor operations.
However, some day you will almost certainly be seriously ill. You will die some day. It happens to everyone, even you. When the big hospital bills, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, come in, you or your heirs will not be able to pay out-of-pocket. Can you really afford to pay for a heart transplant, Lupus, cancer treatments, a broken neck, guillame-barre syndrome? No way! Can you support yoursef in a nursing home when you get Alzheimer’s Disease? Are you kidding?
If you don’t have insurance, eventually I will have to pay part of your bill through my higher costs. You will limit my freedom so that you can be self-centered and irresponsible.
What’s irresponsible about taking control and planning ahead for myself instead of forcing other taxpayers to pay for my health care?
If you can afford it, but choose to not have insurance, it is very likely that you will some day run up big medical bills that you cannot possibly pay. I have a friend who did not expect to be struck down by guilliane-barre syndrome, but was a few months ago. It paralyzed her. She spent three months in the hospital, and probably has doctor and hosptial bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. She will still need in-home care for a while.
I have friends who have had cancer. I have a friend who broke his neck in an accident and is in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. I knew a woman who had lupus; I’ve known people who had heart attacks, etc.
If you choose to be uninsured, how will you pay medical bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Everyone gets sick, or gets injured, or gets old. Everyone.
So there are those on this page who demand the selfish “freedom” to be uninsured, expecting that they are the world’s only exception to the rule that people get sick, injured, or old. They will never have to pay hospital bills — until the inevitable happens to them.
Then the hospital and doctors will charge ME more, because YOU didn’t (couldn’t possibly) pay out of your pocket.
I drive a car, and have to have insurance. I can’t opt out if I want to drive. And it doesn’t work if I wait until AFTER the accident to buy auto insurance.
We are all in the health care system because we will all get old, or get sick, or get injured. So since we are inevitably in the commerce of health care, we should all be required to be insured, just like auto insurance. We should not be able to opt out, any more than we can opt out of auto insurance.
Somebody has to pay. Somebody pays now. I have insurance, and pay more for insurance because some people are uninsured, and they pass the costs on to me when they go to the hospital and can’t pay.
Also, if the insurers are going to keep clients who are expensively sick (and not drop them, as they did in the past) and insure people who have preexisting conditions, the individual mandate is necessary to provide profitability to the plan. That’s how we keep it a capitalist system, instead of moving to a “socialist” National Health plan like Britain, Canada, Sweden, and France have.
If you are too poor to afford insurance, that’s another matter, and that’s why Obama Cares enough to provide subsidies on a sliding scale and health care exchanges to bring down the cost, when the law comes into effect in 2014.
I suppose the bigger question is at what point is it right for government to force people to buy a specific product (as is the case with auto insurance which is wrong as well)? If government can force people to buy these things, then what else can it force us to buy? Where does the power of the federal government end? Although I haven’t actually read the 2000+ page bill (like most of those who voted for it), as far as I know, Obamacare is a one size fits all policy that probably isn’t tailored to my specific health needs. I find it hard to think of a single example of a government service being superior to its private sector competitor. For the elderly and sick, don’t we already have Mainecare and Medicare? If Obamacare becomes law, people will be going to the hospital over things that don’t require a hospital visit (runny nose, cold, etc). You don’t have to look far, with our current welfare system, to see the potential and inevitable abuse. What about those who choose to practice alternative medicine? Will their preference of treatment be covered by Obamacare (while still being forced to pay for it)? Doubtful. Would the law also cover those who abuse prescription drugs? And those who don’t take their own health seriously? I don’t know about you, but I have no desire to pay for expensive treatment for someone who incapacitates themselves with booze, drugs, cigarettes, junk food, etc.
You would not believe the number of people on Mainecare who have destroyed their health and bodies with drugs, etc. and want the health care system to “fix” them. At public expense of course.
Well, CaptainMasochism, if you believe it is wrong to be required to have auto insurance, there is just no hope for you at all. You’re too far off the deep end already. Try laying off the Kool-aid.
You want me to pay your hospital bills because when you crash your car into someone, and can’t pay for their paralysis, I’ll have to pay more. When you get cancer and can’t pay your hospital bill, I’ll have to pay more. You want to shift the cost to me. I have no desire to pay for your childish irresponsibility.
You keep trying to compare health insurance with automobile insurance as a justification for Obamacare. The problem is that the two are not really comparable, at least not as implemented in the ACA.
Automobile insurance has no subsidies. Automobile insurance rates depend on the driver’s age, driving history and accident history. The ACA demands that everyone pay the same regardless of risk. So responsible and low risk individuals will STILL be paying for those who are irresponsible. With auto insurance you get to choose how much coverage you wish to buy. The ACA makes everyone but a Cadillac plan. Automobile insurance does not pay for maintenance on your vehicle. The ACA demands that insurance pay for all regular “maintenance”, regular doctor visits and so called preventive care.
Every one of the insurance company abuses that you cite could be fixed with relatively minor regulations and tweaks to existing law. Most requiring a single paragraph, or at most a few pages, to implement.
I mention automobile insurance because almost all of us drive and own cars, and so we are accustomed to having to buy auto insurance, and most of us don’t think it’s any big deal. Most of us are already required to buy some kind of insurance, and it’s not onerous. It’s routine.
The ACA will allow you to keep the insurance policy you have now, if you have one. So if you are already insured, nothing really changes for you. If you are not already insured, you will have all the insurance options you have now. The ACA absolutely does NOT say “This is your one-size-fits-all policy.” In fact, it will increase your options by giving the option of going to a competitive Maine insurance exchange where you can get the best price. And if you can’t afford insurance, you’ll get a subsidy on a sliding scale to help you pay for your insurance.
Yes, the ACA covers check-ups and prevention, because preventing problems is far cheaper than curing illnesses after you get sick. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That’s one way the ACA saves us all money.
Plus, the ACA means that you can’t be dropped by the insurance company when you have an expensive, catastrophic illness.
The ACA means that the insurance companies have to insure you even if you have a preexisting condition.
The ACA means that young adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ policy.
the ACA closes the Medicare”donut hole” that previously left many seniors without prescription drug coverage.
Polls show that, when asked about individual components of the ACA, the vast majority of Republicans liked most of the individual provisions. But there’s so much misinformation being put out there by folks at Fox News and on right-wing hate talk radio, that while people like what is in the act, they think they don’t want it.
Remember, Ms. Fried is an objective political scientist that is above the partisan bickering. So that makes her opinion(yes, opinion) more important than our own.
huh???? You must be kidding.
You didn’t recognize sarcasm?
When I write up a press release for those suppers and benefit auctions and yard sales where the proceeds go to someone who is sick and needs help, I do not feel sad. I feel amazed by the kindness of Maine people. If I were sick and without insurance, I can’t think of a nicer thing than to have my neighbors along with complete strangers come to a benefit supper for me.
The downside, of course, would be that even with that help, a catastrophic illness would probably not be paid for by the supper/benefit. I would still be in debt.
It is clear to me, however, that Obama’s plan for our health care system is unsustainable. I wish I had the answers to the health insurance problems. We are trying to build a society where everyone who is sick gets the best treatment–but it just cannot be done with the medical models we have right now. There just isn’t enough money to pay for it.
Not even for “health insurance security” am I willing to give up my freedom of association with companies and products of my choice. The founders of our country were enraged at the thought of taxes on tea, and stamps for documents–things that today’s population just shrug over. Freedom from tyranny comes at a cost–and that cost may be that we are not all secure in our health care; that we may have to come, hat in hand, and ask for help; we may suffer an illness that could have been treated. I know may won’t believe this here, but there are worse things that can happen.
Read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn to find out what sacrificing your freedom will lead to. If the government can compel you to buy insurance, what else can it compel you to buy, or not buy?
I vehemently disagree with the individual mandate, too. It puts more of OUR money into the hands of private insurers, who not only escape a “mandate” to protect customers from bankruptcy and death for want of care, but tend to use that new wealth to buy more political power…. More profits, more power — and STILL legions of uninsured and many many under-insured for whom illness = certain financial ruin.
That said, healthcare does not behave as a consumer product; there is no “market” to care for the sick, only to take their money, avoid paying claims and foisting as much of the costs onto society as possible. Where private insurance companies are utilized with much success, is where the COMPANIES are regulated – they MUST take all comers, and pay for whatever care the doctor orders within days (no more of this “doctors asking insurer permission” crap).
“Free-market” healthcare; treating healthcare as a “consumer product” has and will fail. It also is an anathema to freedom. “Freedom” of rich companies to dictate to the doctors of sick people; of the strong over the weak…. That’s tyranny.
“‘Free-market’ healthcare … is an anathema to freedom.”
That’s an interesting argument, and one I’ve never heard before!
The current system, that Obama Cares trys to mitigate, puts all the power in rich insurance companies that can drop you when you are expensively sick, and refuse to insure you when you have a preexisting condition. I want to fix the broken system we have now. Obama Cares enough to try to fix it — the solution is not perfect, but it would be a big improvement over the present anarchy in health insurance.
“the solution is not perfect, but it would be a big improvement over the present anarchy in health insurance.” I agree wholeheartedly. My critique of Obama’s plan in NO way vindicates our current system of corporate tyranny. The very lives of Americans who die needlessly every year are at stake, and certainly those for whom the President’s plan is a Godsend….
Sadly, the President’s plan not only leaves families un- and under-insured, but also funnels precious household income into the hands of those who are quite literally, killing people for shareholder profits — then using those profits to buy more political power. ..the same political power that allowed them to draft Obama’s healthcare plan for themselves. We can eliminate needless death and medical bankruptcy, in either a public system or one that utilizes private insurers. Obama’s plan fails to do either. It also fails in the very necessary aspect of taking power away from private insurers, which are good servants but bad masters.
This individual mandate came out of the Heritage Foundation, and was embraced by Republicans for years. Did they think we wouldn’t remember?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
You’re most welcome:)
You compare the Gulag Archipelago to paying for health insurance? Surely you jest!
The Gulag Archipelago reflected the result of decades of Soviet “planning” of the national economy. You are a history teacher, right? Have you read much Russian history? It’s fascinating.
Yes, I’ve read a couple of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s books, and took Russian History in college. My recollection is that Solzhenitsyn never complained about being charged by the government for his health care — they had actual socialized medicine, by the way, not the capitalist plan Obama has proposed. Solzhenitsyn’s concerns were far greater.
Again, you must be kidding if you think that paying for insurance (medical care is not free and someone will have to pay for it) is the same thing as being sent to a work camp in Siberia!
If you want the “freedom” to not pay for health insurance, and you go to the hospital when you become paralyzed with guillain-barre syndrome (this just happened to someone I know), should they say, “We can cure you, but tough luck, stay paralyzed…”? Or should they treat you?
And if the doctors follow their Hippocratic Oath and treat you, as they surely will, and you have no insurance because your “freedom” to behave irresponsibly was too precious to your self-centered self, then (regardless of whether the government requires it or not) the hospital and the doctor will charge ME more because you demanded your freedom to behave irresponsibly.
So you want ME to pay for your childishness, oh I meant to say “freedom,” and you think that doesn’t limit MY freedom?
Come on! There is no “free.” Someone will pay — someone is paying now. If you truly can’t afford insurance, Obama Cares provides a subsidy on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay. But if you simply demand the “freedom” to make me pay for your health care, that is self-centered irresponsible behavior.
We are a society. Why do the right-wingers think they are not part of society like the rest of us?
Totalitarianism has to start somewhere. When the Soviet government under Lenin, and later, Stalin, came up with Five Year Plans, there were plenty of people cheering about how the government was looking out for them. They cried out to kill all the kulaks. Then millions starved as confiscated farmland was tilled by inexperienced peasants, the original landowners and farmers having been shot, exiled, or fled the country, crop production fell, and centralized planners forcibly moved food into the city, leaving the country folk with nothing.
Has it not occurred to you that if I receive treatment, and I do not have insurance, that I might arrange to pay my own bill? Not having insurance does not necessarily equate to not paying for health services.
Penzance, I would give free healthcare to the world, but nobody can show me how we pay for it without wrecking the economy and causing far more hardship. The ACA does nothing to contain costs. It makes promises, but offers no way to pay for it. I don’t think the administration and the liberals particularly care about containing costs and paying for it. They care about being “compassionate” for the little guy–but the minute hardship hits, they will starve the little guy to keep up the facade that their policies work.
And it is a good question to ask: Is there a limit to what the government can do under the Commerce Clause?
Totalitarianism has never begun with health insurance. If that was true, Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, etc., etc. would all be totalitarian nations today. Either you don’t know what totalitarianism really means, or you are just mouthing mindless propaganda. And I think you know better, because you’ve written many intelligent things on these pages. So please don’t compare health insurance to the Gulag. It’s just so comically absurd.
You say you would pay for your own bill if you got cancer, say for instance, or lupus. That seems unlikely to me. The person I know with guillain-barre syndrome has hospital and doctor bills of tens of thousands of dollars — my guess would be well over $100,000 dollars. How long would that take you to pay off? Of course, they could have said “tough luck” and left her paralyzed, but doctors and hospitals just don’t do that. they treat you, and if you have no insurance they charge me more.
The ACA does contain costs — although I’m not inclined to do the research for you. The cost saving provisions are expected to save $575 billion over the next ten years and add that money to the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
Pres. George H. W. Bush, Pres. George W. Bush and Gov. Huckabee were “compassionate conservatives,” but where is the compassion in conservativism today? It seem the more a candidate wears his religion on his sleeve, the more likely he is to advocate mean-spirited policies toward immigrants, the poor, the sick, and sexual minorities. At one republican debate last fall when the moderator asked if we should let a man die because he was sick and uninsured, there were some cheers and shouts of “Yeah!” from the crowd. None of the candidates challenged those cheers, but Ron Paul lamely said that the churches might help the sick man. That’s all well and good but my church would quickly go bankrupt trying to pay the medical bills of sick members.
Breathe for a minute. I am not in any sense comparing health insurance mandates to the Gulag. If you are so concerned about paying for all those slacker non-insured people, let me ease your burden a little. It is not completely true that an unpaid hospital bill is passed on to consumers. Hospitals have benevolent funds/endowments that are used to help pay some of the costs of those who cannot afford to pay. Think of it as “health scholarships” for deserving humans in health crisis. The problem for many hospitals right now is that they are dipping into their reserves to cover the millions owed to them by state funded health plans. In addition, they are taking out loans to cover these shortfalls, caused by the state not paying its bills. The problem is that the hospitals have to pay those loans back with interest, while the state holds back its payments interest free.
The $1000 increase to your policy stat has not been backed up–perhaps you know where that number comes from?
The ACA costs savings (which there are none, really) are created through the collection of taxes for four years without the provision of services. Look at the costs after the bill is fully implemented. 2023 alone is expected to cost half a trillion dollars. We are a nation in serious debt–the largest debtor nation in the world. $16 trillion in debt right now. I cannot support an irresponsible plan that will bankrupt this nation. I cannot support an increase in government funded health care when that very same government has failed to pay its bills.
Totalitarianism usually emerges after an economic catastrophe. The US is not England, or France. We have our own unique circumstances. We are in serious financial difficulty. I am not given to hysterical Chicken Little syndrome, but I am concerned at the direction we are going through waging war all over the world, to funding entitlements with no sensible restraint.
The low-lifes who cheered at the thought of letting a man die rather than providing health care–I can’t answer for them. They are the exception.
Who brought up the Gulag? You did, and you compared it to the Affordable Care Act — “Read the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn to find out what sacrificing your freedom will lead to. If the government can compel you to buy insurance, what else can it compel you to buy, or not buy?” “Totalitarianism has to start somewhere.” “The Gulag Archipelago reflected the result of decades of Soviet ‘planning’ of the national economy. You are a history teacher, right? Have you read much Russian history?”
YOU said all those things, wandini! Now you say you are NOT comparing insurance mandates to the Gulag! Then what was all that about?
Now you want the hospitals to pay for the poor out of the benevolent funds and endowments that a very few of the wealthiest hospitals have. Not going to work. Nor will Ron Paul’s suggestion that local churches can afford to pay for the poor, when they can’t afford to fix the roof or replace the furnace.
Only all of us together as a society — let’s call it, oh, the government — has the resources.
Yes, as you say, we have our own unique circumstance, including the oldest Constitution and the strongest democratic tradition in the world. I really don’t think we will become a Stalinist or Nazi state simply because we have to purchase health insurance — just as we now purchase auto insurance. You are overreacting.
I may be overreacting when you just consider the health care mandate, but am I wrong for being gravely concerned about the direction this country is going in? I am not just talking about Obama–I mean the past decade of endless war, increasing debt, and, yes, nit-picking regulations that are supposed to be for the public good, but end up hurting the public. See George Will’s column for an example of the latter.
I am not really given to conspiracy theories and reactionary politics, but I think there is a complacency in the current population and it alarms me. I am not saying we are on the verge of being like Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany–what I do see is how those movements in those countries simmered for some time, and then exploded into power really rather suddenly. And the effects of that power were devastating. We all should be more concerned than we are about our freedoms in this country. There is no guarantee they will always be there.
Thanks for calming down!
Yes, I, too am concerned about the economic mess that we seem to be getting out of ever so slowly.
I, too, am concerned about the wars that we got into under Bush 43, and that Obama is getting us out of, not fast enough for many people.
I, too, am concerned about the bad influence of the anger and bombast on right-wing hate radio, on Fox News, and yes, also on MSNBC and Al Gore’s Current TV.
I, too, am concerned about the corrupting influence of the unlimited money that the Roberts Court has allowed into the political system through the Citizens United ruling — Republican candadates are speaking at fund-raisers for their Super PACS when they aren’t supposed to have coordination between the campaign and the Super PAC. Yet you can have the same lawyer for both organizations! That’s not coordination?
I’m concerned by the lack of compassion shown by the Republicans this year — Micke Huckabee, george W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, were “compassionate conservatives,” but we have a mean-spirited bunch this year. Republican debate audiences have booed the Golden Rule, booed an active duty serviceman, cheered the death penalty and cheered and shouted “Yeah!” when the debate moderator asked if we should just let a sick and uninsured person die. I see the same lack of compassion right here on this page.
I was concerned when the Bush 43 administration was torturing people in violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Constitution, and I’m glad that Obama is returning us to Constitutional principles. We have to be ever vigilant.
Yes, I’m very concerned. I pray for our nation, and I do what I can. And I vote Democratic because I’m concerned.
I have a relative who was born in Siberia because his mother was deported there for no reason other than being an enemy of the people. There is no comparison between the oppression exerted by the Soviets and the ACA. Using examples from Soviet Russia just confirms you don’t know what you are talking about.
Politics aside? How about greed aside? Neither of which are going to happen.
I expect this was written before arguments were heard by the Supremes yesterday. We will see in June if leftist “talking points” win out over individual liberty.
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan,
that you’re young and healthy one day, but you don’t stay that way.
And the — the system works over
time. And so I just don’t think it’s a
fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think — a
problem I think is important to understand –
JUSTICE SCALIA: We’re not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and — and need the money now.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But that’s –
JUSTICE SCALIA: When — when they
think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical 1 bills,
they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us. But –
GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s — that’s –
JUSTICE SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.
“We’re not stupid.” ~~~~~ Justice Scalia
Yes, it’s true that the Court is packed with activist conservative Republicans. There’s a chance they might overcome their ideology and do what’s best for the nation, but you could be right — the Court may mess us over, as you hope they will.
By the way, Solicitor-general Verrilli is not a general. He’s a solicitor-general. He’s not in the army; he’s a lawyer.
Verrilli did a poor job, he choked.
Some day you will need health care, and if you don’t have insurance, I will have to pay for your health care. Is that fair? Families who do have insurance right now shell out on average $1,000 a year more than they would otherwise, in order to subsidize the health care costs of the uninsured. Put another way, when the uninsured show up at a hospital and are unable to pay, federal and state laws require those individuals to be treated, and the costs are passed on to those who are insured and to the taxpayers.
The government underscores the unpredictability of health needs by noting that one of the individuals who initially challenged the law in court, contending she didn’t need insurance, ended up declaring bankruptcy, with thousands of dollars of unpaid medical bills.
You are right. Under the present system, created by government, if someone uninsured needs health care you will be FORCED to help pay for it. That is not fair. We need to repeal the laws requiring hospitals to treat anyone who shows up even if they cannot pay for their own care.
To AnarchyISthesolution:
So: 1) Do you think the doctors should abandon their Hippocratic Oath to treat all people, regardless of their ability to pay? Or should the hospitals and doctors just take all of their treatment of the poor out of their own pockets? In fact, the hospitals will treat you whether the government requires it or not. (See #2)
2) Should I have to pay for YOUR medical care when I go to the doctor or hospital and the doctor or hospital charges ME more because YOU ran up bill an didn’t pay?
You want freedom without responsibility — grow up! You have to pay one way or another — you don’t get off free just because you’re an anarchist. The hospitals will have to charge someone.
3) Do you think the rich should get medical care and the poor should just die? If so, you must think Jesus was a liar when he said in Matthew 25 that the only criteria we will be judged on when Judgment Day comes, is whether we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, comforted the sick, visited those in prison, and welcomed the stranger. Why is it that “conservatives” (you are really a self-centered anarchist) have no moral values?
1.) The last I knew hospitals did not take the Hippocratic Oath. Neither did pharmacists, x-ray technicians, etc. I cannot find one place in the oath where it says to “to treat all people, regardless of their ability to pay”. And which version of the oath? How about the original where it forbids a doctor from performing an abortion? From what I see of even the modern oath most doctors break it all the time. Then again, you seem to believe in selectively applying things like oaths based on your personal sense of right and wrong.
2.) No, you should not have to pay for my medical care. How many times do I have to repeat that before you will listen?
3.) The “poor” better decide their priorities and spend their money on insurance instead of drugs, alcohol, and lottery tickets.
True conservatives understand that helping the poor, and all the other cr*p you listed, are personal responsibilities that we are required to do in person and sacrifice while doing. There is nothing moral in passing that responsibility on to society in general or in forcing others to do what you think is right. In fact, forcing others to do what you think is right is the antithesis of having moral values.
You also seem to have missed the entire message and concept in the Bible of “free will”. That people have to make a conscious choice to do what is right. Only in making that choice do they prove themselves to be moral and good. When someone else makes that decision for you it becomes meaningless.
To IrresponsibilityIStheanswer:
1) The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath, as it is used today, says in part, “I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.”
Doctors, hospitals, and their staff are just not going to turn you away, whether the government requires it or not. Before the government required it, they still treated the poor. We live in a humane society, and even though there is no longer any compassion among today’s so-called “conservatives,” real human beings DO feel compassion, and the hospitals will treat people who want to have the “freedom” to behave irresponsibly and not have insurance.
2) There is NO “free.” Follow the logic: You will either get sick, get injured, or get old. It is inevitable. When you do get old, sick or injured, SOMEONE will have to pay your bills. Believe me, you can’t afford to pay for cancer, lupus, Lou Gherig’s Disease, a broken neck, or MS. Remember, I know this is a difficult concept for you, but there is no “free.” Since you will have the “freedom” to behave irresponsibly and not have insurance, I will wind up being charged more. I will have to pay for you. You will limit my freedom just so you can behave irresponsibly. It follows inevitably from your self-centered decision to not act like an adult and get insurance.
3) The “poor” are not really the issue here, except for the inferior health care they get until Obama Cares kicks in. They will have insurance because Obama Cares, and his plan provides subsidies based on ability to pay. You judge them harshly and often unfairly, but the Bible says to take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
While the poor will have opportunities to get insurance under Obama Cares, irresponsibile anarchists like you need to get your priorities straight and buy insurance like a grown up would.
4) According to national polls, the favorite Bible passage of conservatives is “God helps those who help themselves.” Of course, the problem with that verse is that it’s not in the Bible anywhere and it is exactly the opposite of what the Bible actually says. The Bible actually tells us that we are responsible for one another, and it says it over and over.
that’s what it’s like in third world countries. just let the irresponsible and poor die in the streets. At least it will create a couple of jobs for the guy who has to drive the body cart. I agree it is not fair and it bothers me that I have to help pay for the health care for some shmuck who refuses to work. However, I don’t want to live in the society where we let the shmuck and his kids die from preventable illnesses.
The thing is it is the liberals who can better be described as activists… but that is another matter.
The judgement will be decided not on talking points and false equivalencies and irrelevancies like you present but by the Constitution.
I have spent in excess of $150k of insurance company money over the last decade. Never had a problem with them… never was dropped, never was told I had a pre-existing condition… never had a bill payment denied. But that’s not the question today… that only answers your talking point. I pay my own way.
As for your General comment… please don’t be condescending I never indicated he was in the Army. It was a simple cut and paste and the Solicitor portion was outside of the cut portion of the web page.
He did a poor jib because its a hard position to defend if all you have is political talking points and no established law to back you up.
Did the government have the constitutional authority to make the Louisana Purchase from France, or to buy Alaska from Russia? Where in the Constitution does the government get the authority to purchase territory from another nation? Just curious. It’s a Constitutional question, and you said that the Consitutional question is the only relevent question.
Should we give Alaska back to Russia, and the Louisiana Territory — which stretches all the way to Montana and North Dakota, back to France? I just want to know where you stand on the Constitution.
The thing about Constitutional issues is that if nobody asks the Supreme Court to decide an issue, then it doesn’t get decided. So, does the government have the constitutional authority to purchase land? I don’t remember it being in the US Constitution or any amendments–but I haven’t checked lately, and my memory is not so good. Would you like to join me in mounting a Constitutional Challenge to the Louisiana Purchase and Seward’s Folly?
Yes, let’s return Louisiana to Napoleon!
:-)
Okay. I will call Putin re Alaska, the Tsar being persona non gratis in Russia for about 100 years.
It would be more fun to return it to the Tsar. Shake things up a little.
Persona non grata.
These are all simple talking points that do not relate to the question at hand. As wandi says I don’t recall the question ever being posed to the Supreme Court. They therefore are not faced with fantasy scenarios… that are irrelevant if they ever were posed.
The question that is relevant is if the ACA is found to be Constitutional will the government then be able to compel you to purchase a Cell phone in order to call 911 for medical help? That was a questioned posed to the governments Solicitor-General that they could not answer. It is this question that none of you liberals have been able to answer and so will possibly become the dagger in the heart of the ACA. Good riddance.
Talking points? I’ve never heard an Obama official or MSNBC host cite the Louisiana Purchase. I thought I came up with that (I’m a former high school history teacher who loves the overlooked tidbits). Here’s the Constitutional issue:
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce. You are inevitably engaged in the commerce of health care because everyone will eventually get old, or get sick, or get injured. So you are already considered to be in the commerce of health care based on inevitability. The federal government can regulate commerce, the commerce you are in. Just as it can require a driver to have automobile insurance, it can require a patient to have health insurance.Obama is on much stronger Constitutional grounds with the Affordable Care Act than Jefferson was with the Louisiana Purchase
You brought the Louisiana purchase into the discussion to muddy the waters . They don’t have be broadly used in order for them to become talking points…. these are your and are totally irrelevant to the discussion.
There is so much wrong with your analysis I wonder how you survived as a history teacher.
It is basic information that there exists a Constitutional division of powers between the Federal & State governments. State governments have the power to require insurance of owners of vehicles only.
It does not compel insurance for everyone that gets in the car. Furthermore you are not compelled to purchase a vehicle to insure. Even then The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no such power.
One of the central questions the Supremes will decide is your question of “inevitability”. By your logic every child that may someday own a car has to purchase insurance now to lower the cost for me and you. So far the Justices seem unimpressed with this line of thought and I think that’s what has you all wound up.
If I appeared to be saying that the federal government can require you to have auto insurance, that is not what I meant. Yes of course that’s a state issue. But the state can require it — I was suggesting a similarity, and what I’m saying is that this is not onerous. Buying insurance is no big deal.
To our point: The federal government does have the power to regulate commerce. The health insurance market is commerce. We are all in the commerce of the health market because we all have some condition of health, and our condition will inevitably change as we get sick, injured, or old. We are inevitably in the commerce of the health market. The federal government can regulate commerce, and therefore can compel us to prepare for the inevitability that we will get old, or sick, or injured — once you get sick it’s too late, because they won’t insure you then.
Scalia cut off Verrelli, and Scalia’s question misses the point. After you get cancer it is too late to start looking for insurance.
It’s like you’re saying, “I’ll get auto insurance AFTER I have an accident.” It doesn’t work that way.
Your auto analogy is irrelevant as we are discussing federal laws. States perform that task and there are special circumstances which differ from national healthcare which you seem to ignore.
Will you answer these questions?
The government can regulate commerce between the states but can it create a market in which it then has the power to regulate? Effectively forcing everyone in?
We all know for most of us that eating broccoli is a healthy thing. (twice a week minimum in my house) Can you therefore regulate and mandate broccoli in everyone’s diet because it is grown in multiple states? Can you mandate that everyone buy a cell phone because they may at sometime in the future need to call 911?
The auto analogy was only meant to say that buying insurance because of a mandate to do so is not onerous. We do it all the time.
Your questions: 1) The market is already there. The government didn’t create it. We are all in the health care market because we all need helath care at some time or another. We all get born, get sick, get injured, get old, and/or die.
2) I have no idea. I’m just an amateur “lawyer” here trying to answer the question that Scalia posed to someone who is certainly a better lawyer than I am (although he was having a bad day). Scalia’s more of an expert than you or I, yet he’s not the only expert in the U.S., even on the Court. I know President Bush 41 famously said he didn’t like broccoli.
But there’s the thing. This isn’t about broccoli. We don’t have to eat broccoli, as there are plenty of other options. Can we be required to eat? That’s closer to this issue. Still, I don’t know the answer.
But we are all in the commerce of health. We all get born, and/or get sick, get injured, get old, die. You are no exception, nor am I. So we are all in the commerce of health care. And the federal government can regulate commerce.
And Scalia is wrong. You can’t wait until after you get cancer to buy insurance. They won’t sell it to you then.
You don’t buy auto insurance after the crash and expect the crash to be covered.
Great example of why our education system is such a failure. I’m glad I didn’t have him as a teacher. Then again, a majority of my own and my kid’s teachers were no better.
withdrawn by the author.
The Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce. You are inevitably engaged in the commerce of health care because everyone will eventually get old, or get sick, or get injured. So you are already considered to be in the commerce of health care based on inevitability. The federal government can regulate commerce, the commerce you are in. Just as it can require a driver to have automobile insurance, it can require a patient to have health insurance.
Obama is on much stronger Constitutional grounds with the Affordable Care Act than Jefferson was with the Louisiana Purchase.
Does the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to create commerce?
The commerce is there already. You are in the commerce of health care, by virtue of inevitability — you have to either get old, or get sick, or get injured. that puts you in the commerce of health care. the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce.
And that is the governments argument and the Justices are finding that argument wanting.
SCALIA: We’re not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and — and need the money now.
VERRILLI: But that’s –
SCALIA: When — when they
think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical 1 bills,
they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us. But –
VERRILLI: That’s — that’s –
SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.
Yes, I see that Scalia cut Verrilli off and didn’t let him answer the question. The answer is that we are all inevitably in the health care system. When you get catastrophically sick and need the insurance you can’t buy it. You have to buy it BEFORE you get sick — you have to buy it now.
We are all inevitably going to get sick, or injured, or old. Under the current system you CAN’T wait until you get sick to buy insurance. And if you take away the individual mandate, you stay with the current system. So Scalia’s question is sheer nonsense.
After all, you can’t wait until after the accident to get your auto insurance. It just doesn’t work that way.
You got to stop throwing around this $1,000 cost to those that have insurance. The original ESTIMATE was $42 billion not $60 billion, and Larry Lindsey’s economic study estimated $12 billion was the true cost. Hardly something the federal government should use to take over health care. Another study showed the low payments made by states for Medicaid added $1100 to each persons insurance.
Government is the problem.
Wouldn’t it have been better if Scalia had allowed Verrilli to answer the question?
He is before the Supreme Court. It’s where the big boys and girls go to play. It is not up to the Justices to make his case. He had ample time, if not in that moment of fumbling for words, in others.
Certainly he fumbled for words. Many are disappointed that he wasn’t ready for some obvious questions. Bad prep, maybe. He has a stronger case than he made.
Ms Fried. Politics is not the problem. The problem is that ObamaCare trashes the Constitution. The federal government has limits as explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Enclosing your weak argument within two sob stories, a normal liberal practice, does nothing to alter the fact that this law is trash.
Until he was president, Thomas Jefferson said that the Federal Government can only do those things that are its enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.
After he became president, he had the opportunity to purchase the Louisiana Territory, which stretched from the Gulf of Mexico to today’s North Dakota. But the Constitution never said that the Federal government can buy land.
He purchased it anyway, and doubled the size of the United States. Later presidents purchased Alaska from Russia, and made the Gadsen Purchase (parts of New Mexico and Arizona) from Mexico.
Did Thomas Jefferson trash the Constitution? Should we give all of that land back?
The Founders believed one of the enemies of democracy was government. Democrats believe the government is the answer to all our problems, and republicans, not all, believe individuals best find solutions to their own problems.
Having worked in clinics and hospitals I found there is 3 levels of care. You have insurance you get the works; no insurance you get minimum care; then there is VIP care – unwritten policy, but never the less practiced.
Health care is expensive because: 1. 30% of care is unnecessary; 2. Insurance interferance adds 30% to the costs of health care; 3. Patients have no stake in the decision making because insurance (someone else) pays for it.
The ACA addresses #1., but does little for #2., and nothing about #3. A good law would would address all 3 problems. The delivery of health care has made great strides to address the 30% of unecessary care the last few years and that will continue without the ACA. Requiring insurers to pay out 85% in medical care costs will help.
Health care coverage should be verticle individual policies where individuals can build cash balances to pay for that crisis health moment in their life – Health Savings Accounts. Imagine the incentive to actually eat broccoli, and live a healthy lifestyle.
Health care is a collective idea (we’re all in this together). Collectivism has always ended in collapse, and that is where health care is heading.
Odd that you say the Founders were against government, since they established one. They were not anarchists. Yes health care is a collective idea — we are a society, not an unrelated collection of individuals. Highways are a collective idea. You may want to drive on one some day. The public library, the fire department, the army, the judicial system, all collective ideas. No man is an island, said John Donne.
The Founders established a LIMITED government with all other rights reserved to the states and the people. There are limiting factors to Library’s, highways, fire departments, etc. When you enter into health insurance there are few limiting factors – under the ACA each person can consume all the care they want and most doctors will not resist.
If a person was provided with the money to pay for his own care, something like food stamps and section 8 housing subsidies do, there would be a cost saving element introduced. Patients spending their own money would ask questions and seek cost effective care, and not run to the ER or doctor every time they had a cold or ache. Health Savings accounts with a high deductible accomplishes the necessary limiting factor to make health care affordable. A collection of individuals acting in their own interest, as islands, will save this nations health care industry and perhaps our nation too.
Health care insurance as a collective idea will eventually collapse as all other massive collective ideas do.
Health insurance is nothing but a bill paying scheme that charges you up to 30% to pay your bills. Design system for individuals to pay their own bills.
Yes, absolutely, limited government is the great contribution of liberalism to politics. Our Founders, liberals all of them, believed in limited government. Thank God! I’m glad we still have limited government.
The Founding Fathers were not anarchists, they were liberals who formed a government because they knew we are a society, not an unrelated group of individuals. They knew that no man is an island. We, the people, together, established a government “in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” That’s why we have a government, and are not just a bunch of anarchists out to grab what we can from the other guy. We know that, in order to effectively prosper, we must band together.
Of course, absolutely, government MUST be limited. No one in their right mind disputes that!
Yes, health care and highways are collective ideas because we all need them, and we can do more together than we can alone. You try to build a highway by yourself.
Sure, insurance charges a fee, and so does the bank, and so does the supermarket (they don’t sell to you at wholesale, after all). You don’t seem to understand how capitalism works.
Under ACA people will still have insurance. In fact, 80% of us will have exactly the same insurance we have now. And so the same limits will be on them that are there now — no, you WON’T be able to consume all the care you want, at least not more than now. You don’t seem to understand the basics of the ACA. It is not a National Health like Britain’s (although they also have limits). It’s not a “socialist” plan. Most people will hardly notice any changes, except that the insurance company won’t be able to drop you when you get seriously sick, and they will have to cover you even if you have a preexisting condition.
If you are insured now, you will just keep the insurance you have now, and keep going to the doctor you like (or choose another doctor if you prefer). You’re imagining all sorts of bogeymen that aren’t out there.
The American people want a healthcare system where no one goes without needed care; no one goes bankrupt due to illness and doctors are unfettered by insurers in the decision-making process with their patients.
This can be done via Medicare or Medicaid for all; or private companies can be utilized. That’s UTILIZED, meaning, they serve the public good, not undermine it. They must not be allowed to run the system, or interfere with doctors’ judgements pertaining to the best course of care.
Condemnation of judicial activism was nothing more than a Republican talking point. After all, no Republican “constitutional originalist” can point to the words in the Constitution that say corporations are people and money is speech.