It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SBMcG
weather you consider it constitutional or not, the gov't has been subsidizing people's healthcare for decades!!
how about you answer my question..
where in the constitution does it give the gov't the right to decide who should and who shouldn't get that subsidized healthcare out of the mass of people who need that subsidized healthcare? where in the constitution does it indicate that children should be held more worthy of those subsidies as their parents? isn't there something in the constitution about equal protection in the laws???
by going to a single payer, government system, you eliminate one giant, money hungry middle man out of the picture. namely the health insurance industry with it's insanely high salaried ceos and upper management team! weather or not that would reduce the cost enough to make it affordable I don't know. this seems to be a more legitamate argument than your "it's unconstitutional" bit, since what they have been doing the past few decades seems to unconstitutional as all heck to me!
as far as why obama, or any other president hasn't brought a single payer system into being, I can't help if it's because of what the effect it would have on those insurance companies, and as a result, all of those who have investments in them.
The Constitution doesn't say who "shouldn't" get free health care just as it doesn't say who "shouldn't" go to the moon or who "shouldn't" get all the free stuff they want. There are specific rights clearly enumerated in the Constitution that have been clearly defined over and over again by case law and legal precedent. The "right" to free healthcare is not one of them. Here are some other "rights" not granted in the Constitution: The "right" to drive a car. The "right" to free food. The "right" to free housing, clothing, personal items, and cell phones. The "right" to a job and an income. The "right" to take something that is not your property. And so on...
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: SBMcG
He's not letting it die a natural death. He's purposefully killing it. Letting it die a natural death would be leaving it alone. How is enacting executive orders that absolve states from enforcing the mandate equivalent to an unmolested ACA?
Obamacare failed because it flunked Economics 101 and Human Nature 101. It straitjacketed insurers into providing overly expensive, soup-to-nuts policies. It wasn't flexible enough so that people could buy as much coverage as they wanted and could afford — not what the government dictated. Many healthy people primarily want catastrophic coverage. Obamacare couldn't lure them in, couldn't persuade them to buy on the chance they'd get sick.
Obamacare failed because the penalties for going uncovered are too low when stacked against its skyrocketing premium costs. Next year, the penalty for staying uninsured is $695 per adult, or perhaps 2.5 percent of a family's taxable household income. That's far less than many Americans would pay for coverage. Financial incentive: Skip Obamacare.
Obamacare failed because insurance is based on risk pools — that is, the lucky subsidize the unlucky. The unlucky who have big health problems (and big medical bills) reap much greater benefits than those who remain healthy and out of the doctors' office. But Obamacare's rules hamstring insurers. They can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and can't charge older customers more than three times as much as the young. Those are good goals, but they skew the market in ways Obamacare didn't figure out how to offset. Result: Young and healthy consumers pay far more in premiums than their claims (probably) would justify in order to subsidize the unexpectedly large influx of older, sicker customers who require expensive care. Too many unlucky people, too few lucky people: That will collapse any insurance scheme.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wayfarer
Just a redistribution of money from the haves to the have nots.