In considering the individual mandate, conservatives need to address three questions. First, why is it so troubling that the government is requiring responsible individuals to purchase what they would purchase anyway? Second, is it fair or appropriate to make the responsible pay more in order to protect the rights of the irresponsible? Third, what should be done when the principle of limited government clashes with that of individual responsibility?Bottom line, you can do whatever you want or don't want to do, but when your inactions force others to pay more, society had every right to say "Oh fuck no motherfucker, you're putting some damn money in the pool."
Or, put another way, is the principle of limited government so compelling that it should cause us to penalize the responsible and reward the irresponsible?
"But by then, Brown's small auto repair shop near Panama City, Fla., had closed, and she and her husband had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Brown said in the petition that her only income was $275 a month in unemployment benefits.WTF? Then why did you accept unemployment benefits from your government?
Her bankruptcy came to light in December, when a Wall Street Journal reporter interviewed her about her role in the historic case. In a video interview, Brown said was the issue."
I think that having mandated insurance purchasing was a bad PR move, too -- not only did they completely fall down on the job of demonstrating to the general public why everyone having insurance is beneficial, but they also opened the door to this "freedom"-based argument whereby people can argue that they shouldn't be forced to buy something.In fact, it was the biggest point of disagreement between Obama and Clinton during the campaign, with Obama opposed to the mandate. Both of them, on the other hand, were in favor of the public option.
You do pay into your own unemployment insurance, but it's (in every state where I've looked into it) a non-waivable requirement of employmentA mandate, if you will...
It's just not right that the government makes me carry car insurance. It violates my right to drive a car without it. I'm just going to stop sending checks to Progressive. If I get into a car accident, I'll just file bankruptcy. It's foolproof.Car insurance isn't a mandate. It's a condition of being licensed to drive on the roads. What is health insurance a condition of, having a body? Is being alive a privilege that the government provides, rather then a right? Should the government be allowed to regulate human bodies the way they do cars, revoking your right to one if you drink too much of if it doesn't pass inspection?
Driving is a privilege, but it's a privilege almost universally adopted by Americans, especially by those who don't live in a city. According to the Straight Dope, in 2006, there were 226 million adults in America with driver's licenses. If you live in a state that requires car insurance, then it is effectively a mandate.There are 300 million people in the U.S. So a little less then 25% without driver's licenses. And you can get a license without insurance, if you don't have a car registered in your name.
While I hate the name Obamacare, it's not just the name that's horrible,Ever notice how people say democrats run away from their accomplishments. This is an example of that. If the democrats were proud of Obamacare, they would be calling it Obamacare all the time. If they thought people would like obamacare, it would be the best branding for democratic policies ever
"The percentage of residents enrolled in a health care plan continues to increase in Massachusetts, the only state to achieve near-universal health insurance coverage, according to a report.posted by ericb at 1:15 PM on March 10, 2012 [2 favorites]
As of June, 98.1% of state residents had coverage compared with 97.3% in 2009, according to a report released Monday by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy.
... The Urban Institute report found that 65.1% of state residents received coverage from employers; 16.4% obtained coverage from Medicare; and 16.6% were insured through public plans, such as Commonwealth Care, the Massachusetts program that subsidizes health premiums for the lower-income uninsured."
Really, by "branding" Obamacare, the republicans actually could have given the democrats, and Obama a huge gift. But the democrats are too cowardly to accept it, and too weak to have created a law that they would have been proud to have their leader associated with.In the long run this *could* be a strong plus. But in the short term, it is almost certainly very negative.
Still, by not embracing the name"Obamacare", it does hold out hope for some of us that, if forced to go back to the drawing board, he'd come up with something he COULD be prouder of.Pretty unlikely during Obama's term, IMO.
You're missing the massive, massive problem this causes – the problem that the health care mandate is the only solution to.Everything else that's mandated, the government provides. The government mandates kids go to school, and provides free schools. Most (but not all) countries that have single payer don't let you opt out. But you don't pay for health insurance directly, you just pay taxes and the government provides health insurance, or in some cases hospitals and doctors, for everyone.
The trouble is that that ideal contradicts flatly another ideal which we as a society hold dear: the notion that people should be treated medically if their lives depend on it, regardless of whether they can pay. And if you've thought at all about how health care works, I think this is an ideal you have to uphold.No other country has a problem with this, why should we? In fact, if you go to France, the UK, or wherever to visit, get sick or injured, they will have no problem treating you without collecting the equivalent of a years taxes from you. Yet, if someone comes here and gets sick/injured it's quite possible the fees might be greater then their contribution to their countries healthcare program.
koeselitz - the mandate was deliberately not structured as a tax. It could have been done that way, but for political reasons, the Democrats were worried that they'd be accused of creating a new tax. So you can't look to save it that way.I believe it was structured as a tax. Maybe that's not correct.
In the long run this *could* be a strong plus. But in the short term, it is almost certainly very negative.It's only a negative because the democrats suck at life. Anyway, they deserve it. Maybe in the future they'll try to suck less hard.
Very solid majorities of Americans favor the major constituent parts of the health care law (e.g. eliminating pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, allowing parents to cover their children into their 20s, etc.). And yet roughly half of Americans dislike the law itself.
And so long as it is branded "Obamacare", it will have a political bullseye on it. So long as it bears the name of a Democrat, Republicans will be motivated to weaken it, cripple it, and destroy it.So what? If it was popular, they would get destroyed in the polls over it, just like they are for trying to fight contraception.
As to the second, have a look at Gonzalez v. Raich, which is only the most recent in a long line of cases establishing Congressional power under the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate activities which have merely a remote impact on interstate commerce.The Raich case extend Filburn in that, with Filburn you had a guy growing wheat. The effect on commerce could be easily quantified, since every pound he grows, is a pound he doesn't buy. But how you "quantify" the impact on commerce with medical marijuana grown for personal use? It doesn't make much sense, because there's no mathematical correlation between her consumption and "legal" sale and distribution of weed.
Wickard v. Filburn, on which that case rests, is terrible law and a precedent that a lot of people would like to see overturned. I think it easily could, and should, be overturned on textual, intentional, and policy grounds. So I think the individual mandate can and will be found unconstitutional.
"Brown said in the petition that her only income was $275 a month in unemployment benefits." Yep. I think the individual mandate is probably unconstitutional, but a government health care system like Britain's might not be. I'm not convinced it's a good idea though.The biggest "socialist" program in this country is education, and that largely is run by the states. The problem is you're going to get crappy healthcare if you live in a crappy state, just like you're kids get a crappy education today.
Federalism is arguably part of what makes "Romneycare" different from "Obamacare". It's not at all surprising that something might be OK as a state program and not OK as a federal program.
What is health insurance a condition of, having a body?So you feel that the government should be able to revoke citizenship for people based on failure to fulfill bureaucratic conditions? And then what? Deport anyone who doesn't buy health insurance too... where, exactly? Make it illegal for them to get a job? Is that supposed to improve their health?
Citizenship?
Public Health care delivery is accomplished via an elaborate provisioning and delivery system instituted by the Mexican Federal Government. Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is either fully or partially subsidized by the federal government, depending on the person's (Spanish: derechohabiente's) employment status. All Mexican citizens are eligible for subsidized health care regardless of their work status via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency.--
Presumably many of whom are under 16.And who don't have car insurance. But, their parents would be required to Also, lots of people have driver's licenses, but don't own cars, and thus don't have insurance on any particular vehicle. In fact, I'm not even sure it's actually mandatory in all states. I know in the past, it wasn't.
Perhaps there was some effect from the worse than worthless "cash for clunkers" program which took many operating vehicles off the road at taxpayer expense--older vehicles which would need servicing in shops like hers.It took work away from auto repair shops by helping people buy nice cars, many of which would have been more fuel efficient and less likely to cost them a lot to repair over the long term.
No evidence to support. Dismissed offhand. Would likely have saved them money had it been in place earlier, especially if her only source of income was unemployment.Not necessarily, the fees she paid could easily have been under the deductible, and the rates she paid could easily have been more then what she owed.
It administers the Commonwealth Care program for low-income residents (up to 300% of the FPL) who do not qualify for MassHealth and who meet certain eligibility guidelines.posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on March 11, 2012 [2 favorites]
It offers for purchase health insurance plans for individuals who:-- are not working.It sets premium subsidy levels for Commonwealth Care.
-- are employed by a small business (less than 50 employees) that uses the Connector to offer health insurance. These residents will purchase insurance with pre-tax income.
-- are not qualified under their large employer plan.
-- are self-employed, part-time workers, or work for multiple employers.
It defines "affordability" for purposes of the individual mandate.
Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program
Commonwealth Care is one of the newest subsidized health insurance programs offered by the Commonwealth, and is a key part of Health Care Insurance Reform in Massachusetts. It is designed primarily for income-eligible Massachusetts adult residents who are not otherwise eligible for MassHealth (Medicaid), who either do not work or who work for employers that do not offer health insurance. Specifically, it allows eligible residents access to certain subsidized private insurance health plans – currently a choice of five plans – for individuals without health insurance who make below 300% of the federal poverty level. There are no deductibles. For individuals below 150% of the federal poverty level, no premiums will be charged; for those below the poverty level, dental insurance is also provided. For those above 150% of the federal poverty level, a sliding scale premium schedule based on income is used to determine the amount of money a person contributes to their policy. Commonwealth Care for those below poverty has been available through the Connector since October 1, 2006. Plans for those between 100% and 300% of the poverty line have been available since January 1, 2007. As of June 2009, 177,000 people had enrolled in Commonwealth Care according to the Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy. The five Massachusetts health plans contracted with the state to serve the Commonwealth Care population as of April 2010 include: Boston Medical Center HealthNet Plan, CeltiCare, Fallon Community Health Plan, Neighborhood Health Plan, and Network Health. Celticare is offered by a for-profit insurance company, Centene, of St. Louis, MO and the rest are offered by Massachusetts-based non-profits.
Young Adult Coverage
Beginning in July 2007, the Connector offers reduced benefit plans for young adults up to age 26 who do not have access to employer-based coverage.
The county is entitled to reimbursement from the prisoner for payment of medical bills to the extent that the prisoner to whom the medical aid was provided has the ability to pay the bills. The prisoner shall, at a minimum, incur co-payment obligations for health care services provided by a county correctional facility.Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito and Justice Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday asked the Obama administration's lawyer questions about the limits of federal power if the health care law's individual mandate is upheld.posted by zombieflanders at 10:26 AM on March 27, 2012
Roberts asked if Congress can require people to buy cellphones in order to make sure they can get emergency assistance when they need it. Alito asked a similar question regarding burial services, given that everyone will eventually need it in some form or another
Kennedy asked whether Congress has a "heavy burden to show" before requiring people to buy a product.
Both Roberts and Kennedy did, however, appear sympathetic regarding the proximity of health insurance regulation to the interstate market, which is critical to the constitutional question.
Meanwhile, following the end of oral arguments, CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN that based on what he heard inside the Court, things didn't look good for proponents of the law.
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate."
« Older One of the most popular stories on the Amazon Kind... | Trike drifting... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Bromius at 8:41 AM on March 10, 2012 [2 favorites]