Court rRuling on Obamacare

not so much better off, just a little better off. which is reason enough to be happy that the law was upheld. does it mean every little kid in America will see a dentist at least once before the age of 10 ? No. you guys would never pay a few extra dollars in taxes for that. just as long as your kids can afford braces.
Obamacare is all we could get. so we'll take it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Now please tell me why children will be so much better off under Obama Care.

---

Google it, you sad bitter troll.

I'll get ya started: The American Academy of Pediatrics supported Obamacares, as did the Children Defense Fund.
Obamacares provides for copay-less preventive pediatric services, it says insurance companies can't deny care to children for pre-existing conditions, it extends CHIP, it provides extensions for nursing mothers and allows adult children to remain on their parents insurance until 26.

Of course your man Mitt thinks prayer and magic underwear will keep children from getting sick. How embarrassing for you. LMAO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

You libs are a sad lot....when a conservative justice votes with the 4 predictably liberal justices, you shower him with accolades...similar to your post about the dignity. Yet when a liberal justice votes with the predictably conservative justices..................oh wait....... That never happens so we don't know quite how you'd react !! LMFAO. As Roberts said in his comments....it's up to the electorate to resolve all this. And we will. This thing was a disgrace from the sleezy vote buying to pass it to Nancy Pelosi famously suggesting we had to pass it to find out what was in it. You can't pass legislation that fundementally changes the 1/6 of the economy by ramming it through with no opposition votes....none. Not one.... it has to be consencious. It's still unpopular. Deal with that fact. It's never been about universal coverage...ever. It's about moving towards the liberal goal of government controled health care.

Now please tell me why children will be so much better off under Obama Care.

---

Serious, simple question for you, OMK. If state-sponsored medical care is intrinsically evil, can you explain how every other developed western democracy has a system which involves to a greater or lesser degree healthcare provided for from taxes and free or heavily subsidised at the point of demand without the need for costly, indeed often unaffordable personal insurance? Is the rest of the western world wrong and the Republican right correct?

Stavros observed how strange it is in the American debate over universal coverage to hear people say: "why should I pay for your health care?"
This just doesn't come up in other places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

Stavros observed how strange it is in the American debate over universal coverage to hear people say: "why should I pay for your health care?"
This just doesn't come up in other places.

---

Taking community responsibility for those less fortunate is the hallmark of a civilised society. It's also a core principle of Christianity. Given that the US, at least at the level of professed faith and church attendance is arguably the most Christian of all the developed western societies, this seems like a remarkable contradiction.

As I said in my question to OMK, is the American right correct in its approach to healthcare and the rest of the civilised world wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Taking community responsibility for those less fortunate is the hallmark of a civilised society. It's also a core principle of Christianity. Given that the US, at least at the level of professed faith and church attendance is arguably the most Christian of all the developed western societies, this seems like a remarkable contradiction.

As I said in my question to OMK, is the American right correct in its approach to healthcare and the rest of the civilised world wrong?

---

Well, you also need to realize that there are various reasons why this was opposed, and not all conservatives share the same reasons for that opposition. Government can provide whatever services people deem necessary, be it police, fire, or even universal health care. The problem some of us have, is that the federal government was not set up to do this, is far removed from the people at large, and there was an attempt at grossly stretching the enumerated powers of Congress to accomplish this.

I will grant you that for some, the issue is simply about not wanting another "welfare" program, but for others it is about maintaining an equilibrium between central and local government. If there is sufficient support for a single payer/universal/mandatory insurance effort then pass an amendment, much like was done for prohibition, women's suffrage, the income tax, etc. It's a somewhat moot point now, though I think there will continue to be several decades worth of litigation to come out of this (such as more clearly defining when a tax becomes a regulatory effort rather than a revenue raising measure).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYBURBS

Well, you also need to realize that there are various reasons why this was opposed, and not all conservatives share the same reasons for that opposition. Government can provide whatever services people deem necessary, be it police, fire, or even universal health care. The problem some of us have, is that the federal government was not set up to do this, is far removed from the people at large, and there was an attempt at grossly stretching the enumerated powers of Congress to accomplish this.

I will grant you that for some, the issue is simply about not wanting another "welfare" program, but for others it is about maintaining an equilibrium between central and local government. If there is sufficient support for a single payer/universal/mandatory insurance effort then pass an amendment, much like was done for prohibition, women's suffrage, the income tax, etc. It's a somewhat moot point now, though I think there will continue to be several decades worth of litigation to come out of this (such as more clearly defining when a tax becomes a regulatory effort rather than a revenue raising measure).

---

I understand and appreciate that, and I have a high regard for the esteem that you rightly hold for your Constitution, but over here, it's much more the iniquities of this dreadful evil being foisted on an unwilling populace that we hear about. From the perspective of almost anyone in another western democracy where state-funded and governed healthcare functions pretty well, that sort of opposition is simply inexplicable.

I wonder why there is such a deep loathing of this on the right when, leaving aside the issue of how it is paid for, almost all of its provisions for extending health care are positive ones eg. preventing insurance companies from denying cover to those with pre-existing medical conditions. Why is something designed to enhance the health coverage for the nation so loathed by those whose primary concern seems to be to avoid paying tax?

WASHINGTON -- Republicans have said repeatedly that the landmark health care reform law, upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court last week, must be repealed and replaced. But the GOP leader in the U.S. Senate gave a surprising answer on "Fox News Sunday" when asked how Republicans would provide health care coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

"That is not the issue," Sen. Mitch McConnell said. "The question is how to go step by step to improve the American health care system. It is already the finest health care system in the world."

"Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace interrupted, "You don't think 30 million uninsured is an issue?"

"We're not going to turn the American health care system into a western European system," McConnell said. "That's exactly what is at the heart of Obamacare. They want to ... have the federal government take over all American health care. The federal government can't handle Medicare or Medicaid."

Wallace pressed McConnell, noting that the Affordable Care Act will prohibit insurance companies from not offering plans to individuals with pre-existing health conditions. "If you repeal Obamacare, how will you protect those people with pre-eexisting conditions?"

"Over the half of the states have high-risk pools that deal with that issue," McConnell said, assuring Wallace that the state programs could cover the tens of millions of uninsured Americans who have pre-existing health conditions.

Thirty-five states now have high-risk pools, covering about 208,000 people. Those policies are open to individuals with pre-existing health issues but often come with high premiums, waiting periods and coverage exclusions for certain conditions.

The Affordable Care Act included a new federal high-risk pool (modeled on the state plans) called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. So far, only 67,000 Americans have enrolled. The program will be phased out in 2014 when the law's broader provisions kick in.

There are as many as 25 million Americans who lack insurance and have pre-existing conditions and altogether there are 50 million uninsured, according to the Government Accountability Office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1641033.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

You libs are a sad lot....when a conservative justice votes with the 4 predictably liberal justices, you shower him with accolades...similar to your post about the dignity. Yet when a liberal justice votes with the predictably conservative justices..................oh wait....... That never happens

---

Happens a lot. In fact, on the same day as the ACA ruling, there was a ruling that went 7-2 allowing states to keep federal funds meant for certain programs if the states choose not to implement such programs. Kagan and Breyer voted with the 5 conserva-justices. I don't like the decision at all and I think it sets up more shenanigans by Governors who are often little tinpot dictators, themselves. Breyer's often gone his own way, and Kagan definitely is being watched by liberals on some of her decisions. Like the country as a whole, the supreme court has lurched to the right over the last couple of decades, so the term "liberal justice" has lost it's meaning because someone like Kagan - or even Souter before he retired - is truly centrist. They only seem liberal because they often counterbalance far right decisions.