It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins!

Arguments begin tomorrow in the SCOTUS !!

The two authors of an article think there are 3 good reasons to scrape the ObamaCare.

They made a video too.


Nick Gillespie & Meredith Bragg | March 25, 2012
reason.com

As the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - a.k.a. Obamacare - goes before the highest court in the land, here are three reasons to chuck the whole program even before it gets underway.

1. It Represents the End of Limited Government. The Supreme Court will issue its verdict later this spring of course, but there's no question that if the government can force you to do something simply because you exist and draw breath, then the American experiment in limited government is over and done with. Whether it's the mandating of eating broccoli or buying insurance, a government that can make you do whatever it wants just ain't in the American grain.

2. Its Price Tag is Already Ballooning. The latest government estimate of cost tells us what we already knew. Health-care reform is going to cost us a lot more than the arm and the leg it's supposed to save us. The Congressional Budget Office is now saying that the first full decade of Obamacare is going to cost about $1.8 trillion , or double the original estimate used to sell the program.

3. Obamacare Won't Make Us Healthier. Health insurance isn't the same thing as health. Most of us might end up paying more for health care under the new law, but there's precious little evidence that coverage itself leads to lower medical costs. A 1993 study by the RAND Corporation found that "for the average person, there were no substantial benefits from free care ." Not smoking, eating moderately, and not boozing it up provide greater health benefits than any low-deductible, low-co-pay insurance plan.

3 Reasons ?






posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Heck.. I've just got ONE and it's plenty. The U.S. Constitution absolutely doesn't allow for this or anything like it. The 10th Amendment is specific word by word if anyone missed that across the tone of the first 9.
They claim the Commerce clause for everything imaginable and perhaps this is a bridge too far in highlighting the need to take apart the Commerce Clause all together.

However.... In the absence of an amendment ...ratified type amendment.... that specifically gives Congress a new power they haven't had to do this, then the 10th absolutely prohibits it. Thus ends the entire discussion before it begins IF we're giving any weight to Constitutional principle these days.

Of course, it's set for several arguments..and so, I rest my case.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The Constitution also gives the SCOTUS the power to decide if it is Constitutional or not.

I will wait for their ruling and let them do their job.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Those are three of the dumbest and most misleading reasons I have ever seen. Here's three as to why we should keep it

1. Children stay on parents insurance until age 26
2. If you get sick, your provider cannot up and drop your coverage
3. Women will not be forced to pay higher insurance simply because they wrote "female" on the form

There's more but I said three so I have to stick with the three.


edit on 25-3-2012 by skepticconwatcher because: correct error.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The Health Care bill is already in effect.

If the SCOTUS strikes the bill down, millions of Americans will become uninsured overnight and will likely not be able to get any new insurance because pre-existing conditions will be back in play.

If they strike down the mandate alone...then that just makes a public option absolutely necessary.

It will be interesting to see what happens.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


It certainly does. SCOTUS is the final word. Hopefully they don't double down on bad judgement to go with the Imminent Domain ruling.

Obama made total fools out of them in front of the world at the State of The Union Speech though. You don't think Judge's might have...dare we suggest it....tiny, little egos?
I think it's quite safe to say that where discretion allows room, things will go against Obama by default. Even Super Court Justices don't handle public humiliation well. lol...

Having said that, indeed.. Lets see how this plays out. The SCOTUS has gotten as bad as a trial jury for rolling the dice and being wrong on predictions. Even when the black letters of the Constitution seem so crystal clear on a point.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


None of those three reasons have much of any legal bearing. However, I realize that the arguments for this don't really stray into the legal boundaries but generally rely on political/ethical/moral arguments.

I'm interested in hearing what the SCOTUS has to say, conservatives have the 5-4 majority so we'll probably see it shot down due to political lines. Or we may see it pass with one or more of the conservative judges declaring it completely constitutional under the commerce clause. We'll just have to wait and see.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Even when the black letters of the Constitution seem so crystal clear on a point.


Seems crystal clear to you one way...and crystal clear to others a different way.

The thing is...it's not crystal clear...not much in the Constitution is. Which is why we have the SCOTUS.

The way the Constitution sets up the SCOTUS...you can't say they "got it wrong". You may not agree with it...but what they say is the final say...it can be challenged in the future...but until that time what they say is law.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
3 of the biggest Bullcrap reasons i have ever heard.

1. Children are on their mother and daddys insurance until 26

WHAT A JOKE!

2 if you get sick your provider drops you and drops your coverage

Except there is Cobra when that runs out that means your disabled which means Medicare and Medicaid cover medical expenses.

3. Women will not be forced to pay higher insurance simply because they wrote "female" on the form.

Seriously people really do just make of crap talking points.

Yeah there is a lot more but hey Governemnt says you need insurance so they force you to buy it just like they did auto insurance and home owner insurance.

So much for liberalism the GOVERNMENT has no constitutional grounds to force the American citizen to buy a product,good or service because they deem it that way.

Constitutional Republic not a Democracy with idiotic mob rule.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The individual mandate is the biggest joke in the history of our government, and the joke is on liberals who whine and moan about corporations. This is nothing more than guaranteeing insurance companies get more of your money into their coffers. It's funny to see liberal idiots cheering this on while protesting Wall Street. Insurance companies ARE Wall Street. This ONLY benefits insurance and big pharma.

Pathetically laughable.

/TOA



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


I thought one of the arguments against Obamacare was that it limited insurance company profits?

Stifling the free-market or some such.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
How come the United States isn't smart enough to be able to do what every other industrialized country in the world takes for granted. Probably because we are fighting over contraception and teaching mythology as fact



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by The Old American
 


I thought one of the arguments against Obamacare was that it limited insurance company profits?

Stifling the free-market or some such.


The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is a BAILOUT to pharmaceutical and insurance interests written by corporate lobbyists. Based on the failed model in Massachusetts it demands that Americans buy health insurance from private insurance. There will be subsidies for the VERY poor but not for anyone with a MODEST (very modest) income.

A close reading of the new health care legislation shows it will leave at least 23 million people without insurance. It will permit prices to climb so that many of us will soon be paying close to ten percent of our annual income to buy commercial health care insurance, although this coverage will pay for only about 70% of our medical expense. Those who become seriously ill, that lose their incomes, and cannot pay skyrocketing premiums will be denied coverage (the BILL IS FULL OF EXCEPTIONS TILTED IN FAVOR OF INSURANCE INTERESTS). There is no check in Obamacare to halt rising health-care costs. The dizzying array if technical loopholes in the bill -- written by armies of insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists -- means that these companies, which profit off human sickness, suffering and death, can continue to trade away human life for money.

The legislation includes a few tiny improvements used as bait to sell it to the public. For example, the bill promises to expand community health centers and increase access to primary-care doctors. It allows children to stay on their parent's plan until they turn twenty-six. It will include those with preexisting conditions in insurance plans, BUT the many technicalities and loopholes make it EASY FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DROP PATIENTS. Most of the more than thirty million people currently without insurance and the 45,000 who die each year because they lack medical care, essentially remain left out in the cold and THE REST OF US WILL PAY MORE for our premiums.

Info from: The World As It Is: Dispatches On The Myth Of Human Progress by Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. Hedges spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years (1990–2005).

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism.

Hedges is a left-leaning progressive (His Pulitzer Prize articles were hit pieces on George W. Bush) who WANTS national health care, but NOT "bought by corporation healthcare" that will further line the pockets of insurance & pharmaceutical companies and leave peopleWORSE OFF than they were. In his words, Obama's health-care legislation is an example of unchecked corporate greed and abuse.

edit on 25-3-2012 by jolynna because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jolynna
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is a BAILOUT to pharmaceutical and insurance interests written by corporate lobbyists. Based on the failed model in Massachusetts it demands that Americans buy health insurance from private insurance. There will be subsidies for the VERY poor but not for anyone with a MODEST (very modest) income.


I didn't realize that $88,000/year was a modest income. Health Insurance Premiums and Cost Sharing under PPACA for average family of 4


In Massachusetts, one in six people who have mandated insurance say they cannot afford care and that they are WORSE off than before. Advocates promised that the law would shrink the rolls of the uninsured and reduce health care costs. But the reform instead pushed health care cost increases UP. Insurance premiums in the state rose 6% between 2006 - 2008 and are expected to rise 10–12 percent next year, double the national average.


MassCare did shrink the rolls of the uninsured, Massachussetts has the least number of uninsured people in the entire country. Also, if premiums do go up and the money isn't spent on health care, the insurees get payment at the the end of the year from their insurance companies. Something that's already happened in California.

There are so many other things in the PPACA than just the 'mandate', that's why it was over 2000 pages long. All some people want you to hear is that there is a mandate. Getting money back from the government and insurance companies? No, we just have to talk about the mandate!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Even when the black letters of the Constitution seem so crystal clear on a point.


Seems crystal clear to you one way...and crystal clear to others a different way.

The thing is...it's not crystal clear...not much in the Constitution is. Which is why we have the SCOTUS.

The way the Constitution sets up the SCOTUS...you can't say they "got it wrong". You may not agree with it...but what they say is the final say...it can be challenged in the future...but until that time what they say is law.


Actually, we have SCOTUS ti strictly interpret how laws passed by the other two stack up to the Constitution. On this point, with all due respect, I believe it really is crystal clear. Our leaders ignore it and they laugh at people who question them on it. Everyone recall Pelosi's haughty little laugh when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare before it passed?


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Source

And a fairly good stab at the most important parts of why it was written...


“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.

The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.
Source

When one sits down to actually read the text of the document itself...and I'm having to in Political Science this semester....it's written down to a basic level and with little to no fancy wording. It's all the interpretation Congress and lower courts throw between the lines like pork stuffed into a sandwich which leaves such a simple document so badly confused....in my humble opinion.

The founders couldn't have been much clearer and MUST be rolling in their graves. Daily.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


I edited my post to JUST discuss the Affordable Care Act (instead of Romneycare) and how it will not only RAISE premiums and health-care costs BUT will hand out EXCEPTIONS because corporations do not want to insure chronically ill children (and MANY OF THE NEEDIEST.)

Progressives that have studied Obamacare HATE IT just as much as conservatives do, only for different reasons.

But, when BOTH political parties become handmaidens of corporate interests and the truth is censured because the media relies on these same corporations as major advertisers and sponsors -- that is what you get.

Paying more doesn't always mean you get more and when you are sold the bill of goods by a "BOUGHT" politician, you've gone gambling against the house.

imo

edit on 25-3-2012 by jolynna because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Wait. The Obama care bill is already here? Funny cuz I'm basically almost unemployed aside from this temp job I have for 15 hrs a week at min wage and I have zero insurance. Have my entire life. Can't afford it. Don't want it anyway. Rarely get sick. And even if I do, I don't run to the dr. I take OTC cold stuff or whatever the case is.

Obamacare is going to screw the low incomers like me who struggle to pay rent, bills, student loans etc. Bad enough the student loans keep me having to push my bills ahead and let them add up. To force me to have to pay what? 100/150/300 a month that I don't have for mandated insurance? What about old people on a fixed income of 600 or 800 a month? I heard we go to jail if we don't pay. WTF. Almost like child support, huh?

Down with this all the way.
I've been fine my whole 39 years w/o health insurance. I don't need this money sucker at ALL. We should have the choice to opt out without penalties.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sarra1833
Wait. The Obama care bill is already here? Funny cuz I'm basically almost unemployed aside from this temp job I have for 15 hrs a week at min wage and I have zero insurance. Have my entire life. Can't afford it. Don't want it anyway. Rarely get sick. And even if I do, I don't run to the dr. I take OTC cold stuff or whatever the case is.

Obamacare is going to screw the low incomers like me who struggle to pay rent, bills, student loans etc. Bad enough the student loans keep me having to push my bills ahead and let them add up. To force me to have to pay what? 100/150/300 a month that I don't have for mandated insurance? What about old people on a fixed income of 600 or 800 a month? I heard we go to jail if we don't pay. WTF. Almost like child support, huh?

Down with this all the way.
I've been fine my whole 39 years w/o health insurance. I don't need this money sucker at ALL. We should have the choice to opt out without penalties.


Um... look beyond Fox for a real description of the Patient Protection Act. It hasn't even got much off the ground yet and your apprehensions are all demythified if you actually read the act. Here:

What it really is sans GOP spin...



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Thanks a lot. I'll go read that now.



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Now this here kind of makes me curious:

"Employers with more than 200 employees must automatically enroll new full-time employees in coverage. Any employer with more than 50 full-time employees that does not offer coverage and has at least one full-time employee receiving the premium assistance tax credit will make a payment of $750 per full-time employee. An employer with more than 50 employees that offers coverage that is deemed unaffordable or does not meet the standard for minimum essential coverage and but has at least one full-time employee receiving the premium assistance tax credit because the coverage is either unaffordable or does not cover 60 percent of total costs, will pay the lesser of $3,000 for each of those employees receiving a credit or $750 for each of their full-time employees total."

Nothing I saw yet about part timers. Do you think more jobs will keep people part time to avoid the above? PT seems to be the "coolest trend" going on all over as it stands. Least here in Illinois. Being hired full time ( and most places consider anything under 37 hours a week as part time) is turning into a fairy tale of sorts, sadly.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join