The new health care law, how's it working??

To answer the original question on New Health care law...I will add this.

I pay for my own individual policy. I'm not working and it is very important to me to maintain my coverage. I pay roughly 250.00 a month with a $1750 deductable. Hence...I don't plan on using this insurance unless something serious happens. I called my provider today to see what my new monthly premium will be and found out it did increase 30.00 For that additional $30 dollars a month I am now covered 100% (no deductable necessary) for preventative care. Things such as a yearly mammogram, lady part exam, colonoscopy, bone density exam will be covered. So from my perspective it's a little something I can use without worrying about covering my $1750 deductable.

Chef I hope you are feeling better and I'm sorry this happened to you.
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Are you referring to the US Constituion or the one that belonged to the Confederacy? State laws do not trump Federal laws in our book. If Massachusetts can demand people buy into a healthcare system so can the Federal government.


Wow, I really hope you aren't this stupid, and are only whooshing me.....

It's not a matter of which law trumps which, state vs federal. Massachusetts can do it because there's nothing stopping them from doing it, so to speak (unless something is in their own state constitution - I have no idea but I doubt it, since the law was implemented).

The federal government NEEDS TO HAVE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY to do something, granted by the Constitution. They can't just pass a law because they think it's a neat idea, or even if it makes perfect sense and the country would benefit.

Seriously, you and the other lefties on this board would greatly benefit from reading the actual constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to mandate commerce, interstate or otherwise. They only get to regulate commerce: and your assumption that regulation = compelling is a completely novel reading, and if upheld would completely eradicate any restraint on federal powers. That's something the framers would have hated, certainly.

The 10th Amendment says, basically, that if it's not in here, the Feds can't do it - the States make the call.

Which is why the Romneycare bill is legit, Obamacare ain't. Oh well, at least it resulted in giving the Democrats a complete assreaming, with another one to come, thanks to Pelosi/Obama/Reid shoving it down the public's throats.
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: chefantwon
NOT when it comes to crossing state lines, PJ. The Consitution does NOT allow the feds to dictate what products people have to buy.


You better tell that to Republicans because thats precisely at the heart of their Healthcare Reform package - a system that allows people to buy accross state lines. Perhaps someday they'll send their healthcare reform package to the CBO to be scored for its level of fiscal responsibility...I wont hold my breath on that one either.


Allowing insurance companies to compete for business in all states is what that was/is about, not forcing anyone to buy anything. When out of 1200 insurance providers in this country, only 6 control the health insurance market in California, competition and the resulting lower prices caused by companies competing for business are nonexistent.

Quote

Originally posted by: shlomo

God, I wish liberals would read the constitution once in awhile...


Maybe a good conservative can teach the liberals about the Constitution.

"We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause]"

From Rush Limbaugh addressing CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) 2009 FOX News

One little problem, none of that is from the Constitution.


shlomo says: "God, I wish liberals would read the constitution once in awhile..."

Which one shlomo? The real Constitution, or the Limbaugh version?




Roughly those same six insurance companies control the health insurance market in the entire United States. Allowing them to sell across states lines would do nothing, but effectively bring to an end state regulation of health insurance companies. Big companies like Anthem would simply write their health polices in the state with the least consumer protection. I find such an argument really lays bare the true conservative designs in this area. In effect what conservatives are saying is they don’t want the Federal Government regulating health insurance, but at the same time they want to effectively strip away all State regulation of health care leaving nobody to regulate or police an already oligopolistic market.

BTW most health insurace rates are based on the demographics of your zip code so if you bought a policy out of state you wouldn’t get the cheaper rate of the out of state resident.



Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: chefantwon
NOT when it comes to crossing state lines, PJ. The Consitution does NOT allow the feds to dictate what products people have to buy.


You better tell that to Republicans because thats precisely at the heart of their Healthcare Reform package - a system that allows people to buy accross state lines. Perhaps someday they'll send their healthcare reform package to the CBO to be scored for its level of fiscal responsibility...I wont hold my breath on that one either.


Allowing insurance companies to compete for business in all states is what that was/is about, not forcing anyone to buy anything. When out of 1200 insurance providers in this country, only 6 control the health insurance market in California, competition and the resulting lower prices caused by companies competing for business are nonexistent.


Quote

Originally posted by: malibber
Roughly those same six insurance companies control the health insurance market in the entire United States. Allowing them to sell across states lines would do nothing, but effectively bring to an end state regulation of health insurance companies. Big companies like Anthem would simply write their health polices in the state with the least consumer protection. I find such an argument really lays bare the true conservative designs in this area. In effect what conservatives are saying is they don’t want the Federal Government regulating health insurance, but at the same time they want to effectively strip away all State regulation of health care leaving nobody to regulate or police an already oligopolistic market.

BTW most health insurace rates are based on the demographics of your zip code so if you bought a policy out of state you wouldn’t get the cheaper rate of the out of state resident.


Interesting spin, but pure BS. Open and free market competition drives prices down. Conservatives don't want the government forcing them to buy any insurance company's plan while adding a layer of federal bureaucracy that will absolutely drive costs up for everyone.



Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: chefantwon
NOT when it comes to crossing state lines, PJ. The Consitution does NOT allow the feds to dictate what products people have to buy.


You better tell that to Republicans because thats precisely at the heart of their Healthcare Reform package - a system that allows people to buy accross state lines. Perhaps someday they'll send their healthcare reform package to the CBO to be scored for its level of fiscal responsibility...I wont hold my breath on that one either.


Allowing insurance companies to compete for business in all states is what that was/is about, not forcing anyone to buy anything. When out of 1200 insurance providers in this country, only 6 control the health insurance market in California, competition and the resulting lower prices caused by companies competing for business are nonexistent.


Dlc, this experience has taught me a great deal on how messed up our health care system is today.

The Federal government in it's wisdom (or severe lack thereof) doesn't have a clue as to what to do because they can't effectively run any program with out screwing it totally up.

In order to effectively cover folks utilizing Federal funds, taxes are going to have to raised a boatload. However, the average person won't have anything to do with that one. The Democrats will keep saying the poor will suffer and funds must come from taxing the rich.The rich folks (the standard here will get lower the more money the Feds need) will complain that they get the stuffing taxed out of them and the poor basically get by for free. Everyone bitches, nothing gets done, and the problem winds up in someone elses hands.

75 trillion in unfunded debt. I wonder how their going to make that noney up??? Oh yea, I forgot, by taxing the crap out of everyone EXCEPT themelves.

To cover this subject will take forever..

FIRST: People who are unemployed, please find your nearest Community Health center - they service those without insurance. 1300 additional ones were built under Bush:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/world/americas/26iht-bush.1.18936658.html?_r=1

SECOND: They work. They base a visit and services on a sliding scale - less income = less cost. These centers also work with surgery centers to provide discounted services, find insurance, hand out drug samples etc.

THIRD: Current system does not work Obamas solution will NOT work. Question si how do you pay for free healthcare.?

You can tax the Rich - but how much ?, 35% (nope already doing that), 40%, maybe 75% of income - will that work ????

SOLUTION: Initiate a national sales tax exclusively for healthcare. The everyone pays and everyone may need to use it. Thus tax covers medicaid and re-funds medicare.
Quote

Originally posted by: shlomo
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Are you referring to the US Constituion or the one that belonged to the Confederacy? State laws do not trump Federal laws in our book. If Massachusetts can demand people buy into a healthcare system so can the Federal government.


Wow, I really hope you aren't this stupid, and are only whooshing me.....

It's not a matter of which law trumps which, state vs federal. Massachusetts can do it because there's nothing stopping them from doing it, so to speak (unless something is in their own state constitution - I have no idea but I doubt it, since the law was implemented).

The federal government NEEDS TO HAVE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY to do something, granted by the Constitution. They can't just pass a law because they think it's a neat idea, or even if it makes perfect sense and the country would benefit.

Seriously, you and the other lefties on this board would greatly benefit from reading the actual constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to mandate commerce, interstate or otherwise. They only get to regulate commerce: and your assumption that regulation = compelling is a completely novel reading, and if upheld would completely eradicate any restraint on federal powers. That's something the framers would have hated, certainly.

The 10th Amendment says, basically, that if it's not in here, the Feds can't do it - the States make the call.

Which is why the Romneycare bill is legit, Obamacare ain't. Oh well, at least it resulted in giving the Democrats a complete assreaming, with another one to come, thanks to Pelosi/Obama/Reid shoving it down the public's throats.


Jefferson Davis could not have said it any better. The US Federal Government can pass any law it chooses so long as it does not violate the Constituion. If the south actually won the Civil War your premise would be correct and we would not have things like Medicare and Social Security...or even a national currency... but we do because, much to Senator Jim DeMint's displeasure, the north won the Civil War.
Quote

Originally posted by: Number51
Quote

Originally posted by: shlomo

God, I wish liberals would read the constitution once in awhile...


Maybe a good conservative can teach the liberals about the Constitution.

"We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause]"

From Rush Limbaugh addressing CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) 2009 FOX News

One little problem, none of that is from the Constitution.


shlomo says: "God, I wish liberals would read the constitution once in awhile..."

Which one shlomo? The real Constitution, or the Limbaugh version?


Quick! Change the subject!

Lefty 1 to Lefty 2: "I know our plan is unconstitutional so quick let's tell a story about some guy we hate and get the poster to defend that guy, instead of focusing how liberals mostly don't have a fckn clue about what the proper role of the Federal Government is...."

Or did you plan to say something on topic here? If you're not able to address the issue, I completely understand. Look, I don't pretend to be any good at making lattes, I don't drive a VW or wear a beret, and I'd suck as an actor or theater critic. I'm not a lefty, right tool for the right job I say.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now