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.

 

Will/should Obamacare pass the Supreme court and why?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Being on Medicare I have never felt that I have a dog in this fight. I consider universal healthcare a nice idea but who is going to pay for it. Furthermore I consider Obamacare to be a giant gift of 30 million new customers for the health insurance industry, an Obama sellout to corporate America. Now if the conservative justices on the SC see it as I do it could well fly. Right now I see it passing 5 to 4. Any takers or odds makers?

Anybody believe it is a part of a PTB conspiracy to further take down and/or bankrupt America?

Here is a link to a good article on the March 27 SC session.

www.scotusblog.com...
edit on 27-3-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
It is against the Constitution....plain and simple.

It should never have passed to this point in the first place.

Des





edit on 27-3-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Are you saying it violates some existing clause(s) in the Constitution? I say the Government was never granted the proper power but that could be said for many long standing government exercised powers. So what is new, the Constitution was shredded years ago by both parties.

Adapt or perish.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   


Anybody believe it is a part of a PTB conspiracy to further take down and/or bankrupt America?


I didn't at first, but the more I ponder on the issue, the more it seems likely. Does anybody really believe that this health insurance we will be forced to buy will be reasonably cheap? Does anybody really believe that the tax penalty for not buying said insurance is going to be cheap?

Lastly, does anybody believe that all this extra government will be cheap to run?

They want to bleed us dry, slowly and painfully. This isn't socialized medicine, this is forced purchasing for the benefit of the health insurance companies. The basic problems of being ripped off and overcharged for health services is not fixed by this. I would rather see us implement a system like the UK or Canada has, rather than this screwed-up mess.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
After reading and hearing some of the arguments today in the SCOTUS...I'm not sure what is going to happen.

I was pretty confident that the Health Care Bill would pass under the Commerce Clause...but it seems like 5 of the justices have narrowed their view on that...but it could just be because it was the Obama attorney arguing today. We will have to see tomorrow.

The main problem I see is that the legislation was written wrong. It should have included a "health care tax" and then provide a full tax credit for those that provide proof of health insurance that meets the minimum standards. If you don't have health insurance that meets the minimum standard, then you pay the tax.

But they called it a penalty instead of a tax...so it becomes that you have to do something or you get fined. Where it should have been that you get rewarded if you do something.


So I'm not sure at this point...I think they should uphold the health care bill...but not sure if they will or not after hearing todays arguments.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


When doesn't the NWO Cabal get what they want.? Does anyone actually believe this is about caring for your health? This about about controlling any health care. Rather making sure your health doesn't get any care. We will be made to pay for something that will basically continue to increase. It is simply another bailout on the backs of the US taxpayers. Double speak like War is Peace.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Hell no, Obamacare is retarded.
It is just another attempt to make us a socialist country. The biggest problem is this sense of entitlement people have in the US. get rid of that and things will start to solve themselves .



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
This will not effect the overall high cost of healthcare. All this will do is aggregate the money and power into fewer hands. What they need to do is disallow insurance companies to own hospitals as well as allow for people to purchase insurance across state borders breeding competition.
edit on 27-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
We decided to get a book about the bill. One that is not slanted...at least not obviously.

Many of the things the bill said would be available to be looked up online already are not.
The book is full of a lot of maybe...perhaps,...should...could...might....
In other words a lot of vagueness.
So, a lot that should already be in place IS NOT.


It's going to be expensive.
More than I can afford. With subsides...or credits.
It looks like more people with be able to pick up Medicaid, with fewer restrictions....like asset checks.

It appears that there are certain things that MUST be included, but prescription coverage is not among them...it's one of the things that states "should" cover.
I don't think it goes into where the states are going to get the money for this


Seems to me, this is not healthcare....it's health insurance....and the only folks to benefit are big insurance and big pharma.
It will drive many doctors out of business.
I will lessen the quality of care that many now have.
It will bankrupt the country....after it kills the middle class.

SCOTUS should kill it.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


I read yesterdays transcript and up through page 25 of todays and if it passes, its due solely to the liberal judges who support this administration.

The questions I read several judges asking and the answers they were being given led me to believe its being passed well slipping backwards every question.

You could be correct though... liberals vs conservatives



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




The main problem I see is that the legislation was written wrong. It should have included a "health care tax" and then provide a full tax credit for those that provide proof of health insurance that meets the minimum standards. If you don't have health insurance that meets the minimum standard, then you pay the tax.

But they called it a penalty instead of a tax...so it becomes that you have to do something or you get fined. Where it should have been that you get rewarded if you do something.


And maybe perhaps they did that for a hidden reason ?

Think about who gets the advantage regardless of which way the decision goes.

Think about what actually happens either way.

The lawyers and politicians were very well aware of the entire consequences when the law was passed.
(even with what Nancy and Harry said)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by oghamxx
 


No.

It should not.

The government has no business, nor does it have the right, to make you do anything. The fact that any American stands for that is really mind boggling.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by oghamxx
 


No.

It should not.

The government has no business, nor does it have the right, to make you do anything. The fact that any American stands for that is really mind boggling.

~Tenth



Do you think the government has the right to reward you for doing something?

We both know the government has the right to tax...so what would your thoughts be on a universal health care tax on everyone to cover the costs of uninsured people, and a full tax credit for those that do have health insurance that meets minimum requirements?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


What reason are you thinking of?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Will not pass.

I based this on the number of states involved in the lawsuit, SCOTUS taking the case, poor argument, and poorly written bill.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


There's plenty of room in the budget, if you cut the important stuff like defense spending etc, to provide full healthcare coverage to all Americans.

Perhaps that kind of system like you discuss, where those who pay into it get a tax credit for doing so, is a good idea, although I would think that would take money out of the program and up putting the country into more debt.

I just don't think they have the right to force you to buy something, that thought is insane to me. Either give to everybody, and provide a service via the government, not private insurers ( cause we all know it just goes into their pockets anyway) or let the free market do it's job.

Otherwise your system will fail you.

~Tenth



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

I was a corporate insurance broker for 20+ years before I couldn't stand the hypocrisy any longer and quit the business. I also had the displeasure of reading through the 1000+ pages of the bill and it's various interpretations so I'm fairly familiar with the specifics. This should fill in some of the blanks. Please note that I'm leaving the debate of constitutionality out of my response to provide some basic raw facts.


Many of the things the bill said would be available to be looked up online already are not.
The book is full of a lot of maybe...perhaps,...should...could...might....
In other words a lot of vagueness.
So, a lot that should already be in place IS NOT.

This was entirely expected as the verbiage of the law was extremely ambiguous and the time lines for some of these items were entirely unfeasible; many requirements were granted extensions by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the overseeing governmental body primarily responsible for the law's implementation along with the IRS and the DOJ. I would assume that the book you read didn't include the myriad of extensions and changes that have been passed since the law's original implementation date of 3/23/2010.


It's going to be expensive.
More than I can afford. With subsides...or credits.
It looks like more people with be able to pick up Medicaid, with fewer restrictions....like asset checks.

It is going to be incredibly expensive because the law missed the mark on one of the most important aspects and main reason for the debacle we find ourselves in today - the need to control the never ending escalating costs of health care. The law says that every one must be covered with at least the minimal level of essential coverage. This must be provided without consideration of past medical history and with the exception of one or two caveats, regardless of age. This is a concept called guaranteed issue. I can tell you that NYS has had guaranteed issue health plans for many years and the average cost of single coverage in an HMO is around $1,300 per month for single coverage under an individual health plan. The law tries to address this with the concepts of minimum loss ratios and state health insurance exchanges which are supposed to promote competition amongst the participating health insurers - for small group health plans, $0.80 of every dollar you and I pay in premiums must go toward claim payments or we get a rebate. Problem is that with no controls over the escalation of health care, costs are going to continue to escalate as will insurance premiums just to meet that $0.80 minimum loss ratio. This is the same reason why the exchanges will fail.


It appears that there are certain things that MUST be included, but prescription coverage is not among them...it's one of the things that states "should" cover.
I don't think it goes into where the states are going to get the money for this

Actually, RX drugs are included in the essential health plan specifications but the verbiage does not specify the amount, duration or scope of RX coverage. It leaves this determination to HHS.


Seems to me, this is not healthcare....it's health insurance....and the only folks to benefit are big insurance and big pharma.
It will drive many doctors out of business.
I will lessen the quality of care that many now have.
It will bankrupt the country....after it kills the middle class.

Don't fool yourself - the entire healthcare industry, including insurance companies, big Pharma, hospitals and doctors will ALL benefit because there's no limitation on price escalation.


SCOTUS should kill it.

As someone who built and voluntarily gave up a long-standing career being an advisor to consumers in this field, I couldn't agree more. I do believe the original impetus of the law was a positive thing, but the rushing of the ambiguous verbiage and the lack of having any limits on escalating health care costs were fatal mistakes.

Timidgal



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
You're right in that the psychological implications of the law's verbiage creates resentment and a feeling of loss of control. We Americans dont easily accept these things.

With that said, I don't agree it should pass because it contains nothing to limit the escalation of health care costs. For instance, as long as the cost of an MRI or an average 30 day supply of blood pressure medication costs several hundred dollars, nothing will change and insurance premiums will remain incredibly high.

TG



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


There's plenty of room in the budget, if you cut the important stuff like defense spending etc, to provide full healthcare coverage to all Americans.
~Tenth


Before making ridiculous statements you might want to look at the facts.

There absolutely is NOT enough money in the budget for the Obama care version of healthcare - or our current system for that matter. We are running more than a 40% deficit now and the cost of health care has been increasing by 8% every year since 1980. Defense spending in its entirety is only 18% of the budget - it will never be cut entirely. Taxes cannot be raised by 40%. First raising taxes drives down taxable income and drives more jobs and money overseas - and the bush tax cut is at most 300 billion a year which would still leave us with a trillion dollar deficit. Budget cuts are the only possibility to balance the budget and medical costs are the number one place dollars need to be cut. The entire tax base does not even cover Medicare, Medicaid, welfare/unemployment, interest on the deficit and SSN NOW!!! This cannot and will not continue for a decade more - probably not even 5 years more.

That means in only 9 years healthcare costs will double. This means in 9 years 100% of our current taxed income would be spent ONLY on medical costs - no Social security - no defense - nothing but Medical. We will never get there because nobody will buy US bonds when it is clear we will have no way to pay it back - which really is already clear to anybody paying attention. If interest rates even double - which would still be historically extremely low, that is another 250 billion right now, and obviously as our debt is growing really fast that number is only going to continue to get larger.

Our system of healthcare costs roughly double for the same care of major nationalized systems across the world, which is pathetic. Obama care is awful in that it basically is adding bureaucracy to our current system and forcing everyone to pay for the uninsurable which will only increase costs. It only makes things worse but liberals only care they are getting "FREE" healthcare. It is not free - NOTHING IS, it is going to destroy every citizens future including yours if you are alive even a few years from now.

Wake up - this country is beyond F'd, you won't get the Social Security you are promised and medical funding will be cut by the government it is completely unavoidable.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Response to all. Thanks for some great thought provoking posts.

I too consider it unconstitutional but then IMO the constitution has been ignored for years.

It certainly will be expensive. If hospital ER's are relieved of the financial burden of those with no insurance there is no way they will pass those savings on.

Still, considering trends and especially the SC ruling on Citizens United, corporate America has the upper hand and will get their way, in this case 30 million new health care industry customers.

How can the conservative justices pass it and still appear to be conservative? It will be interesting to say the least.

Thanks again!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join