Obamacare UPHELD

[Brandon Rhea]

The Supreme Court has UPHELD the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Info is still a bit sketchy at the time I write this but it sounds like the individual mandate was upheld not under the commerce clause as the government argued, but as a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the deciding opinion for the Court.

This is monumental.

 

[Black Noise]

Dammit.

 

[Matt]

Does this mean you lot will be doing free healthcare now?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Does this mean you lot will be doing free healthcare now?

Considering how divisive an individual mandate that kept the private for-profit system was, I can't see us doing single payer, or even a German system or public option system, for at least another 20 years.

 

[Matt]

Considering how divisive an individual mandate that kept the private for-profit system was, I can't see us doing single payer, or even a German system or public option system, for at least another 20 years.

So from someone who hasn't been keeping up with this, what is the jist of this? What does this act passing mean?

 

[Kaeb]

Does this mean Obama has more of a chance of being re-elected?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

So from someone who hasn't been keeping up with this, what is the jist of this? What does this act passing mean?

The bill passed 2 years ago. At issue was the Constitutional challenge to the individual mandate which required all Americans to purchase health insurance, or have health insurance through their employer. The idea behind that was as such: because the law required insurance companies to cover more people and offer more types of coverage, which by itself would raise costs, the individual mandate was put in place in order to increase the risk pool. The more people in the pool, the less health care costs for each person. So the increased coverage and the mandate have a balancing effect.

The challenge came from people saying that the federal government doesn't have the power to force people to purchase something. The government argued that it had that broad power under their Constitutional authority to regulate commerce (i.e., the commerce clause). The Court didn't buy that but they did say that the mandate was Constitutional if viewed as a tax. Specifically, because there's a fine if you don't buy health insurance, that fine is basically considered a tax and therefore the Congress has the power to tax it. 4 liberal justices and the conservative Chief Justice sided with that, thereby upholding the law.

This decision, because of the taxation argument, could also be read to mean that further attempts at health care (public option, Bismarckian, single payer) would be Constitutional as well, since they would be a tax system and not an individual mandate. That's just speculation on my part at the moment without having read the full decision, where they could have very well limited the scope of their decision so as to avoid people thinking it could lead to further government-based reforms.

Does this mean Obama has more of a chance of being re-elected?

Who knows? No matter what happens, this is going to be a close election one way or another.

 

[Matt]

I see. I presume one of the big issues regarding bringing in any new healthcare system would be taxes? I know you guys pay **** all compared to most of Europe.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I see. I presume one of the big issues regarding bringing in any new healthcare system would be taxes? I know you guys pay **** all compared to most of Europe.

That's one, but also Americans can be very conservative sometimes. They feel that giving government control over health care gives government too much control over our lives, and that government health care would essentially enslave our health and well being to the power of the government.

 

[Matt]

That's one, but also Americans can be very conservative sometimes. They feel that giving government control over health care gives government too much control over our lives, and that government health care would essentially enslave our health and well being to the power of the government.

Not to come across as bashing America here because that isn't what I'm trying to do but why do Americans who appose this feel there country is so different from anyone else?

Why do they feel it would just not work in America when it works in many other countries?

I mean, ours isn't perfect and we have quite long waiting lists on things but...Well a bloke of the street can get the same level of care as me.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Not to come across as bashing America here because that isn't what I'm trying to do but why do Americans who appose this feel there country is so different from anyone else?

Why do they feel it would just not work in America when it works in many other countries?

I mean, ours isn't perfect and we have quite long waiting lists on things but...Well a bloke of the street can get the same level of care as me.

The faults of European health care are more widely reported and listened to than the successes.

 

[Matt]

The faults of European health care are more widely reported and listened to than the successes.

Ah, and Canada's as well I presume.

Fair enough.

 

[Kuran]

Which, all due respect, lowers the standard across the board.

A lot of Americans are against it simply because it forces them to have health insurance. I am (somewhat) American, and really I think it comes down to the fact that very few people want to be forced to do anything. Essentially, who does the government think they are, to fore people to do something (in this case, healthcare). The problem is that there are a lot of things within the bill that are controversial. For one thing, there are (proposed) committees for things such as elder care. It is possible now to simply cut off health care for a person if they are deemed a 'financial drain' by the government. Private healthcare becomes much more difficult. Which, really, is restricting freedoms in several ways. Which in itself is un-constitutional.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Which, all due respect, lowers the standard across the board.

A lot of Americans are against it simply because it forces them to have health insurance. I am (somewhat) American, and really I think it comes down to the fact that very few people want to be forced to do anything. Essentially, who does the government think they are, to fore people to do something (in this case, healthcare). The problem is that there are a lot of things within the bill that are controversial. For one thing, there are (proposed) committees for things such as elder care. It is possible now to simply cut off health care for a person if they are deemed a 'financial drain' by the government. Private healthcare becomes much more difficult. Which, really, is restricting freedoms in several ways. Which in itself is un-constitutional.

You do realize that the exact same thing happens in private insurance, yes? That's why private health insurance is so appalling. All of this talk of death panels and rationing is ridiculous mainly because the insurance companies do that right now. The difference being that insurance company administrators are unaccountable to people, and they ration and cut off care so they can make a profit at the expense of your wellbeing.

 

[Kuran]

You do realize that the exact same thing happens in private insurance, yes? That's why private health insurance is so appalling. All of this talk of death panels and rationing is ridiculous mainly because the insurance companies do that right now. The difference being that insurance company administrators are unaccountable to people, and they ration and cut off care so they can make a profit at the expense of your wellbeing.

True. However, if a consumer or consumers are falling victim to such a thing, they can switch companies. Or simply not be a part of it. Now they are forced by law to be a part of it(or will be, rather). It's a good deal harder to switch governments. I'm from the UK originally. I grew up with the NHS. So I, like anyone else who has lived with a similar system, can say that it is in no way something to base your healthcare on. There are delays for everything, increasingly lower standards of care, etc etc. Not very motivational.

 

[Matt]

True. However, if a consumer or consumers are falling victim to such a thing, they can switch companies. Or simply not be a part of it. Now they are forced by law to be a part of it(or will be, rather). It's a good deal harder to switch governments. I'm from the UK originally. I grew up with the NHS. So I, like anyone else who has lived with a similar system, can say that it is in no way something to base your healthcare on. There are delays for everything, increasingly lower standards of care, etc etc. Not very motivational.

Lower standards of care? You sure about that? I'd be intrigued to know what your basing that on other then the usual ''Bloody NHS'' that every Briton has uttered atleast once in there life. Delays have constantly decreased for the last ten years every single year as well btw bar this year.

They are there for sure but if it's a case of waiting 6 months for an operation to drastically improve my life or having to pay thousands for the privilege I know which I would prefer.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

True. However, if a consumer or consumers are falling victim to such a thing, they can switch companies. Or simply not be a part of it.

It's not the company. It's the system.

Plus, those who don't buy insurance still have to be given care in an emergency, which means the rest of society has to pay for them anyway.

Also, you don't have to switch governments, but if the government isn't providing health care that satisfies the people, the people are welcome to elect new representatives who can change that.

 

[Black Noise]

It's not the company. It's the system.

Plus, those who don't buy insurance still have to be given care in an emergency, which means the rest of society has to pay for them anyway.

Also, you don't have to switch governments, but if the government isn't providing health care that satisfies the people, the people are welcome to elect new representatives who can change that.

^true that.

My problem is the fact that this will only push America further into debt to her own people. The government may be providing a service, but it's coming out of everyone else's pocket.
But even then, the above isn't too bad, the real problem is the fine this comes with.

Generally, what the Government is saying with the fine for not getting healthcare is that 'if you don't pay, we are going to take money from you until you do'
That's the part that drives me nuts.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

^true that.

My problem is the fact that this will only push America further into debt to her own people. The government may be providing a service, but it's coming out of everyone else's pocket.
But even then, the above isn't too bad, the real problem is the fine this comes with.

Generally, what the Government is saying with the fine for not getting healthcare is that 'if you don't pay, we are going to take money from you until you do'
That's the part that drives me nuts.

Well it's not a fine anymore, it's a tax. Slight difference, but a difference nonetheless. Additionally, the government isn't making money off of what is now a tax. The funds collected from that are used to bring down the cost of health care, so they're going to where they need to go. It's not like they're just taxing the failure to get health insurance and then just doing whatever they want with that revenue. There's a specific purpose to it. What had been the fine but is now a tax is about societal responsibility, the responsibility to not **** over everyone else with higher costs because you don't feel like buying health insurance when you can.

 

[Black Noise]

Well it's not a fine anymore, it's a tax. Slight difference, but a difference nonetheless. Additionally, the government isn't making money off of what is now a tax. The funds collected from that are used to bring down the cost of health care, so they're going to where they need to go. It's not like they're just taxing the failure to get health insurance and then just doing whatever they want with that revenue. There's a specific purpose to it. What had been the fine but is now a tax is about societal responsibility, the responsibility to not **** over everyone else with higher costs because you don't feel like buying health insurance when you can.

If the government isn't making money, then it will increase debt, the taxes they are collecting will never be 'just enough' to cover everyone needing medical care. Now I'm not saying **** the people who can't pay, I'm only saying that it will increase the government's total debt.
And I understand the second part of your argument. I personally don't see why anyone wouldn't buy healthcare in the first place without this being in existence(outside of not being able to pay). And yes, a tax is a societal responsibility, that's a given.