You're lumping things together in a weird way. The commerce clause is the primary tool the people have to counteract corporate domination. The strength of the commerce clause is the measure of how much power the people have over corporations. Weakening that means taking power from the people and giving it to the corporations. So lumping together corporate interests with a broad commerce clause is very strange.
Yep, that's right. And then $8k in 2025. And $16k in 2032. And so on until we get a public option or single payer system in place.
So is your position that the fine should be bigger? Or what exactly?
No it isn't; the purpose of insurance is to spread the risk among a larger pool of people. What's a scam is charging some people more money for health care, for factors that are completely outside of their control (like being a man or a woman).
Does PPACA require it to be covered? I dunno. If so, IPAB will study it like any other procedure, and it'll soon be phased out anyway since it isn't cost-effective.
If I'm not mistaken, the only things that must be free from the beginning are preventative care services...and that's a good thing. Although I'm all for catastrophic plans, there needs to at least be some free preventative care in there too. Otherwise, people will be less likely to see the doctor until it becomes a much more serious (and expensive) problem.
I'm just using those states as an example of why buying policies across state lines wouldn't work, at least as it's structured now. I'm not referring to those states specifically, or any coverage specifically.
Yes, the government folded to corporate interests when single payer is the way to go. I am always amused when Congress decides to invite industry leaders for consultation.
Nice dodge on all the points I made. I suppose that you will fight for lifting the age restrictions as one can not control that anymore than their gender.
It never ceases to amaze me that discounts for females on auto insurance, or surcharges for "young" drivers are OK, yet acturial based FACTS must be ingonerd IFF it proves that males must "pay the price" for "fairness".
Free preventive care is rediculous, that is a normal routine expense of life, just as tune-ups, oil changes and flat tire repair are NOT covered by auto insurance even under "full coverage".
PPACA is 90% income redistribution and a tiny amount of medical care reform.
Try single payer on AUTO insurance, on a state level first.
The people, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people, are one group that uses the commerce clause for monopoly busting and things like OSHA. The corporations, or rather the federal government claiming to be working for the people but really working for corporations, are another group who uses the commerce clause for their own ends. Just read up on the inanity of Wickard. It has been used to justify the drug war on local non-commercial growers. The Drug War is HUGE business for people in government. Much money in play.
The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle.
Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care,
It is true that theoretically the commerce clause could be used to advance a corporate agenda. But 99 times out of 100, it's the other way around. Corporations are fighting to try to prevent the government from regulating them and the people are pushing to regulate the corporations via the commerce clause. Reeling in the worst of the corporate abuses would require a whole lot more aggressive use of the commerce clause. So trying to weaken the commerce clause while at the same time denouncing corporate rule doesn't make a ton of sense. Even if it is sometimes abused, it is still our only meaningful tool in the struggle for control of the country.
I'm no fan of the war on drugs, but that isn't really about kowtowing to corporations. The problem with drug enforcement is similar to the immigration issue. Anybody who counters momentum to ramp up the war on drugs is denounced as refusing to enforce the law and some sob stories about babies starving to death when their mothers are high or whatever get trotted around and they fall back in line. It's the same tactics as are used to try to push us into a "war on illegal immigration" situation, not corporations.
The way this will happen is that insurance will become astronomically more expensive due to the provisions in this act, and as more and more people can no longer afford the health insurance they are required by federal mandate to buy, they will look to the government for a back-up plan, which will be Medicaid.
This is in all likelihood precisely government's plan. "Make them all poor enough to need us."
Scrap it and start over? Are you ****ing kidding me? HELL NO. I'm all for building upon the Affordable Care Act incrementally until we have universal health care, but on what planet are you living if you think that a Republican Party that is so viciously opposed to even THIS measure would consider universal health care?
There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.
I would be interested in hearing about the Tea Party opinion on UHC, especially with the rising unemployment rate and the prohibitive cost of COBRA.
The bottom line is that Obamacare is not based on the rock of principle but the sand of political expediency. Let's scrap it and come up with UHC based on the rock of principle. The principles are that everyone should be covered and funded by the community at large and the medical industry should operate as private enterprise. Finally, preventative care is as important as catastrophic care.
There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.
I don't disagree, but that's just the reality in a pluralistic society. Different people have different principles. You need to compromise. When you can find a solution that at least a majority of the country thinks makes at least some improvement according to their principles, you go for it. The dream of being able to just redesign our entire health care system based on one person's set of principles, and then everybody else will just go along with it, isn't a reality.
Why do it incrementally when you can do it at once with a stroke of the magic pen?
It sucks for the guy at 134% of the poverty line...maybe he'll quit his job to get affordable health insurance...
There's no need to make people poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, since the Medicaid eligibility rules can be changed at any time by an act of Congress. I favor incrementally letting Medicaid apply to more people. For example, PPACA raises the income level which qualifies for Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line. Next we can raise it to 150%, then 200%, and so on. Same with Medicare...let's reduce the eligibility age from 65 to 63 to 60, and so on. Raise the age at which people can stay on their family's plan from 26 to 28 to 30, and so on. Incrementally covering more and more people, until eventually everyone is covered.
Do you know who pays the Medicaid tab? Not the beneficiaries.
So what you want to see happen is for fewer and fewer taxpayers to have greater and greater funding responsibility over the nation.
This lack of responsibility over our own lives might sound liberating to people like you, but others realize that what suppresses the cost of something is the self-interested assessment of the person purchasing it as to whether or not it is a good deal.
Stated another way, the more responsibility you take away from people over their health care, the less they will care what it costs, and thus the more it will cost.
Because it is not politically possible to pass universal health care with a stroke of the magic pen.
What a bunch of BS. That has NOTHING to do with medical reform at all.
You just want an incremental UHC system, controlled by the gov't.
Why is it politically impossible? Because Jimmy-Joe and his friends stand over to the right and Starlight and her friends stadn on the left and both are sworn enemies of the other? The ****ing political system has all these imbeciles right where they want them...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?