The Pending Doom of Obamacare

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Today we got some encouraging news as a federal judge in Florida again struck down Obamacare noting that Congress has no Constitutional authority to regulate inactivity. Moreover, it isn't just certain parts of the law that Judge Rodger Vinson struck down. He noted accurately that every part of the law depends directly or indirectly on the individual mandate to buy health insurance and so none of it can be sustained apart from it. Vinson also denied an injunction and ordered all implementation of the law to stop. Democrats, ironically enough, are decrying this as "judicial activism". They clearly can't handle the shoe being on the other foot.

The government may appeal to the Supreme Court, but David B. Rivkin Jr, lead representative for the 26 states in the suite, noted that in those 26 state (including mine!) the ruling has immediate force.

O Happy Day!

[captmoroniRM]

I like how the judge cited Pres. Obama in a 2008 campaign speech as part of his justification for striking it down. Something that had to do with Obama saying there are other solutions besides federally mandated health care.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

I like how the judge cited Pres. Obama in a 2008 campaign speech as part of his justification for striking it down. Something that had to do with Obama saying there are other solutions besides federally mandated health care.

Indeed. This is just one of numerous examples of Teleprompter's hypocrisy. He is absolutely shameless in changing his positions whenever the political winds shift. I also like how the federal government backed themselves into a corner by arguing that the mandate was the key component in the health care law. The judge recited their own words back to them and used it as a reason to strike down the entire law, not just a part.

[dash77]

Although I do not agree with all aspects of Obama's plan, if it does get struck down -- and if is the key word -- the United States will continue to be the only developed contry that does have provide universal care to its children. Personally, I find that quick abusive and so far away from a ethic of care. Further, the concept of pre-existing conditions -- which only serves to help rich insurance companies get richer -- will continue.

Although the United States is so far ahead of other contries in some areas (e.g., technology) it is so far behind when it comes to an ethic of care and its treatment of children from a medica/healthl perspective can only be viewed as abusive.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, health insurance is not a particularly profitable industry.

[dash77]

Just a guy:

First off, I do not trust news report much -- I look more toward research. With that said, the article you sent dos show that insurance orgnization are making between 2to 18 million a year.

[Traveler]

I think health care is a good idea - but there are two problems that I think we need to deal with.

1. The idea that, for whatever reason, anyone should think that they should receive health care without any financial sacrifice of their part. I realize that some people are poor and cannot pay as much as others but the idea that the only way a primary sector of the people can be convinced to participate in the current government concept of health care is if they do not contribute at all - nothing!! Not even a small reduction in their welfare benefits. If it is of no value to many that do not and will not contribute - why should it be of value to anyone else?

2. The idea of insurance has been lost and the insurance blamed for exorbitant profits. First off the idea of insurance is to cover unforeseen disasters - not day to day common needs. Our entire society has become entitlement obsessed and why should not the working poor have any less entitlement than the not-so-working lazy wealthy elite? And -BTW- insurance profits are less than most other industry profits.

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

Just a guy:

First off, I do not trust news report much -- I look more toward research. With that said, the article you sent dos show that insurance orgnization are making between 2to 18 million a year.

2 to 18 million dollars in profit is not much for an industry that comprises 17% of a 14 trillion dollar GDP (that amounts to a 0.7% profit margin)

[Blackmarch]

Today we got some encouraging news as a federal judge in Florida again struck down Obamacare noting that Congress has no Constitutional authority to regulate inactivity. Moreover, it isn't just certain parts of the law that Judge Rodger Vinson struck down. He noted accurately that every part of the law depends directly or indirectly on the individual mandate to buy health insurance and so none of it can be sustained apart from it. Vinson also denied an injunction and ordered all implementation of the law to stop. Democrats, ironically enough, are decrying this as "judicial activism". They clearly can't handle the shoe being on the other foot.

The government may appeal to the Supreme Court, but David B. Rivkin Jr, lead representative for the 26 states in the suite, noted that in those 26 state (including mine!) the ruling has immediate force.

O Happy Day!

well thats a step.. but the fight's far from over.

Hopefully we can keep taking steps to fix things... altho I don't think that a total repeal is a working solution, it might work as a temporary one.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

well thats a step.. but the fight's far from over.

Hopefully we can keep taking steps to fix things... altho I don't think that a total repeal is a working solution, it might work as a temporary one.

I don't see any part of this bill that is salvageable or desirable. Much of the public has a scant view of "cost sharing" and that nothing is for free. When mandatory coverages are forced on insurance companies, everyone suffers from raised rates and more expensive care. This bill should be scrapped and a new health care reform bill should be introduced by Republicans in the house that feature tort reform, a return to Medicare solvency, a rolling back of burdensome regulations on doctors, and a reform of HSA's so that people's medical savings aren't confiscated at the end of the year and people can save money for catastrophic as well as routine care. None of that is in Obamacare so Obamacare must go.

[MarginOfError]

I don't see any part of this bill that is salvageable or desirable. Much of the public has a scant view of "cost sharing" and that nothing is for free. When mandatory coverages are forced on insurance companies, everyone suffers from raised rates and more expensive care. This bill should be scrapped and a new health care reform bill should be introduced by Republicans in the house that feature tort reform, a return to Medicare solvency, a rolling back of burdensome regulations on doctors, and a reform of HSA's so that people's medical savings aren't confiscated at the end of the year and people can save money for catastrophic as well as routine care. None of that is in Obamacare so Obamacare must go.

Those reforms are great and all, but they really only benefit the people who already have insurance. Part of the problem is that too many people that need health care coverage can't afford the insurance to get it.

Another part of the problem is payment-by-procedure. There need to be more incentives toward group practices, such as the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic (the two largest group practices in the country). Medical centers that follow these kinds of models are usually better than private practices (outcomes wise) and far more cost efficient. Multidisciplinary care should be the standard, and not the current system of competing specialties.

There'd be a lot less medical treatment needed if Americans were healthier. A nationalized premium that could be adjusted by lifestyle choices (but blind to race, gender, and religion) would be nice, but I know that will never happen. The alternative is to require everyone who uses the healthcare system to purchase insurance (much like we require people who utilize vehicles to purchase insurance). Private companies could then adjust their premiums based on lifestyle choices.

The last big contributor, in my opinion, is cultural insistence that we throw every tool we have at every illness. People will hate my suggestion, but evidence based practice needs to play a role in diagnosing and treating patients. We need to perform fewer tests and fewer procedures and not be so anxious to employ the latest technologies and innovations (which rarely prove to show significant improvements in prognosis).

Admittedly, Obamacare didn't do much to address these issues. The institution in which I work was disappointed at how far short that bill was of what is truly needed. But what you're proposing does very little to address these things either.

[dash77]

All of this comes from research sources; I can share the reference if people want me to

1. The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that fails to provide national health care and the ONLY nation where health care is financed by a for-profit approach. Canada’s health care act, for example, is a nonprofit act. In America, insurance companies make profit off of illness. In 2004 the Institute of medicine attributed 18,000 unnecessary deaths to lack of insurance. This value does not seem to link to anything Christ-like, nor any other nation makes profit on denying people basic health care.

2. Approximately 40 million people do not have heath care, which includes about 9 million children. Not all of these are lazy people not contributing – sometimes bad things (e.g., lay-off) happen to good people.

3. Administrative costs for health care programs consume approximately one-sixth of the 1.9 trillion spent on U.S. health care in 2005 – which estimates to $300 billion a year. This money is due to health-care bureaucracy and to free market competition (e.g. marketing and advertisement). Re-directing this money alone would be enough to cover all the uninsured!!!

4. There are multiple studies that suggest the Canadian health care is equal and in some places better that American health care.

5. Many business leaders – including the big 3 (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) have advocated for a single payer system because it would save them money and cause them to be more competitive (I know Obama is not advocating for a single payer system – what Republicains often call the takeover of socialism).

6. Health care would allow more entrepreneurism because people would be willing to try small business ideas/risks, know that if they failed, they would still have basic coverage.

In the end, though, there is nothing Christ-like about making profit on people’s illnesses. In fact, it is downright sickening that people who profess to be serving Christ would allow a for-profit mentality where an industry makes money on sick people. In the city where I live the ambulances have advertisements on them – so as they are attending to people literally dying, they are advertising in the act of suffering so they can make a profit. Again, no other country does this except “God’s” chosen nation.

I am all for for-profit, but not in the area of health care. I have no problem giving more in tax money to help the poor and needed, even the occasional lazy ones. I think it aligns to Christ-like values to give and serve the poor and needy.

With this said, I know there are some problem’s with Obama’s health care system – its not perfect. But is making profit on illness Christ-like?

[Dravin]

In the end, though, there is nothing Christ-like about making profit on people’s illnesses.

So you disagree with a doctor charging more than strict costs for his services? What about a farmer?

[talisyn]

I love the health care law, no surprise I'm sure. But on the other hand with all this 'unconstitutional' talk maybe soon I won't have to pay mandatory car insurance. There really is no difference.

[Dravin]

I love the health care law, no surprise I'm sure. But on the other hand with all this 'unconstitutional' talk maybe soon I won't have to pay mandatory car insurance. There really is no difference.

Actually there is. Car insurance mandates are legislated on the State level not the Federal. Which is a significant difference constitutionally speaking:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So just because something isn't within the purview of the Federal Government doesn't necessarily mean it is outside of the purview of the States.

Edit: I am not making a claim that the health care law is or is not constitutional. I'm just pointing out that State versus Federal is a significant difference when talking about constitutional authority.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Dravin

[talisyn]

It really depends on the language of the courts. A federal court has the power to strike down state laws. If it's worded the right way the ruling disallowing mandated health care can and will be used to disallow state-mandated auto insurance.

[Dravin]

It really depends on the language of the courts. A federal court has the power to strike down state laws. If it's worded the right way the ruling disallowing mandated health care can and will be used to disallow state-mandated auto insurance.

Maybe, maybe not, but there really is a difference between State and Federal consitutional authority. So to say there really is no difference between a Federal mandate and a State mandate is inaccurate.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

It really depends on the language of the courts. A federal court has the power to strike down state laws. If it's worded the right way the ruling disallowing mandated health care can and will be used to disallow state-mandated auto insurance.

Not quite.

There is a very big difference between auto-insurance and health-insurance. You BUY the auto. You are born with your health. Therefore, when you CHOSE FREELY to purchase the car you are basically agreeing to purchase the insurance that goes with that car. You can't CHOOSE FREELY to be born or not be born when you see that there's a mandatory health insurance that goes with your health.

[Guest]

But is making profit on illness Christ-like?

Profit on anything - illness or otherwise - cannot be classified as Christ-like or not-Christ-like. Just like money cannot be classified as Christ-like or not-Christ-like.

It is what you do with the profit or the money that makes it Christ-like or not-Christ-like.

A corporation is a non-human organization. The investors are human. Therefore, when you quote $2 Billion in profits - that doesn't make it bad. What makes it bad is if the $2 Billion in profits was spent to make a nuclear bomb to explode in the middle of New York. For all you know, those $2 Billion in profits got spent on keeping all of the stock-holders' families healthy and educated. Wow, what a concept, huh?

By the way, if you don't know who the stock-holders are for these companies - you might want to start thinking... pension funds, mutual funds, savings accounts, 401Ks... all those things that keep those old people from being wards of the state.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just wanted to reply to a few points here:

2. Approximately 40 million people do not have heath care, which includes about 9 million children. Not all of these are lazy people not contributing – sometimes bad things (e.g., lay-off) happen to good people.

CHIP covers children in homes making less than 160% of the poverty level nationwide, and in some states it covers children in homes making up to 400% of the poverty level. This was pre-ObamaCare. The notion that "health care reform" is about the children is one of the great untruths of this entire debate.

3. Administrative costs for health care programs consume approximately one-sixth of the 1.9 trillion spent on U.S. health care in 2005 – which estimates to $300 billion a year. This money is due to health-care bureaucracy and to free market competition (e.g. marketing and advertisement). Re-directing this money alone would be enough to cover all the uninsured!!!

Government bureaucracies are superior to private-sector bureaucracies?

By the way: we don't have true "competition" in health care right now, and won't until you can call five different clinics and get five different up-front, cash quotes for an MRI or a gall bladder removal or any other medical procedure. This situation could be fixed by the judicious use of antitrust legislation (much of the confusion comes from what amounts to little more than price-fixing and/or tying of services, which are already illegal); but you won't see that happen because the current administration sees the status quo as a crisis to be exploited and not as a problem to be solved.

4. There are multiple studies that suggest the Canadian health care is equal and in some places better that American health care.

*shrug* Better for some poor, worse for most non-poor. Socialism does that.

Is that why Wikipiedia's editors are reduced to arguing balderdash like "some longer wait times can benefit patients"?

5. Many business leaders – including the big 3 (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) have advocated for a single payer system because it would save them money and cause them to be more competitive (I know Obama is not advocating for a single payer system – what Republicains often call the takeover of socialism).

Ford would love to be able to walk away from those juicy, UAW-negotiated health care packages they fund and shunt the cost off onto the American people. No surprise there.

6. Health care would allow more entrepreneurism because people would be willing to try small business ideas/risks, know that if they failed, they would still have basic coverage.

Accepting your underlying assumption as true (which I dispute, since pre-existing programs already substantially protect the truly impoverished): This proves too much. If you insulate people from the effects of failure, they become much more likely to make investments that are detrimental to society as well as themselves.

In the end, though, there is nothing Christ-like about making profit on people’s illnesses. In fact, it is downright sickening that people who profess to be serving Christ would allow a for-profit mentality where an industry makes money on sick people.

Ultimately, the alternative to having doctors agree to treat patients for their own personal gain is to force them to treat patients at the point of a gun.

Which system will give you the better health care?

With this said, I know there are some problem’s with Obama’s health care system – its not perfect. But is making profit on illness Christ-like?

It's only "profit" in the hands of the company. When that money is duly disbursed to the shareholders, as Anatess said, it becomes "living allowance" or "retirement".

Edited February 3, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

None of these are facts, it's left wing skewing of the issue. So let's debunk these systematically.

1. The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that fails to provide national health care and the ONLY nation where health care is financed by a for-profit approach. Canada’s health care act, for example, is a nonprofit act. In America, insurance companies make profit off of illness. In 2004 the Institute of medicine attributed 18,000 unnecessary deaths to lack of insurance. This value does not seem to link to anything Christ-like, nor any other nation makes profit on denying people basic health care.

All hospitals, clinics, and doctors make a profit off of illness including those in socialist countries. The profit motive has produced a quality of care second to none in the world. Socialist countries don't even bother to improve their care by R&D, they simply benefit from the advances in medicine afforded by our unique system. To scold doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, etc for daring to make a profit for providing a service is absurd to say the least. Moreover, I don't believe that figure of 18,000 dying because heartless hospitals cast them out into the street for lack of insurance. All Americans, and illegal immigrants, can receive life saving treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

2. Approximately 40 million people do not have heath care, which includes about 9 million children. Not all of these are lazy people not contributing – sometimes bad things (e.g., lay-off) happen to good people.

This figure always ommits the fact that most of these uninsured are so by choice. In my younger years, you couldn't shove insurance down my throat with a hydrolic shovel. I was healthy and didn't want it.

3. Administrative costs for health care programs consume approximately one-sixth of the 1.9 trillion spent on U.S. health care in 2005 – which estimates to $300 billion a year. This money is due to health-care bureaucracy and to free market competition (e.g. marketing and advertisement). Re-directing this money alone would be enough to cover all the uninsured!!!

Not connecting the dots here. How does free market competition increase administrative costs when historically, the free market by design makes business cheaper and more efficient. This "fact" is nothing more than sloppy research leading to counterintuitive conclusions. It's a brain fart.

4. There are multiple studies that suggest the Canadian health care is equal and in some places better that American health care.

In no universe is this true. In fact, there is a thriving industry of referral businesses that coordinate health services in American border towns to the Canadians who cannot get these services in Canada. These same referral businesses have been urging us not to cast away the very system that has made our health care second to none.

5. Many business leaders – including the big 3 (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) have advocated for a single payer system because it would save them money and cause them to be more competitive (I know Obama is not advocating for a single payer system – what Republicains often call the takeover of socialism).

Oh, so the profit motives of corporations are fine as long as they're not insurance companies, is that right? It's not a lack of a single payer system that cuts into competitiveness, it's the unions that negotiate these benefits. This is why many car companies are moving their production facilities to Right To Work states.

6. Health care would allow more entrepreneurism because people would be willing to try small business ideas/risks, know that if they failed, they would still have basic coverage.

Even in the face of the facts, these arguments keep getting promoted. Everyone's rates just jumped by 20% to 60% (mine jumped 40%) just in anticipation of the few items of Obamacare that have already been implemented, namely the mandetory coverages. How does higher taxes and costs contribute to the chances of an entreprenuer's success?

In the end, though, there is nothing Christ-like about making profit on people’s illnesses. In fact, it is downright sickening that people who profess to be serving Christ would allow a for-profit mentality where an industry makes money on sick people. In the city where I live the ambulances have advertisements on them – so as they are attending to people literally dying, they are advertising in the act of suffering so they can make a profit. Again, no other country does this except “God’s” chosen nation.

When all else fails, drag Jesus Christ through the muddy trenches of socialism. Jesus never advocated 2nd person charity whereby you reach into my pockets to care for someone else. Your whole approach reeks of coveteousness of the property of others, which in itself is a sin.

I am all for for-profit, but not in the area of health care. I have no problem giving more in tax money to help the poor and needed, even the occasional lazy ones. I think it aligns to Christ-like values to give and serve the poor and needy.

With this said, I know there are some problem’s with Obama’s health care system – its not perfect. But is making profit on illness Christ-like?

I guess making a profit off of food is also not Christ like. Farmers should work for free because food is a necessity. You know what else is a necessity? Water. It should be pumped into your house for free as well. You also need to heat your home and it would be unchristlike for the gas company to charge you for this much needed product. Of course it's very christlike to raise taxes on your neighbor, particularly when you can vote but you're probably one of the 40% who pay nothing in federal taxes, in which case, it's a win win senario. Please give me more details in how Jesus taught us to set up a cradle-to-grave socialist utopia as an end run around his commandment for true charity whereby a person reaches into his own pocket to help the poor, not mine.

[stcalixtus]

Why is it that many of us choose to ignore the plight of others in this world? millions die from lack of basic medical care and yet we choose to allow chemotherapy on a eighty two year old woman with lung cancer who has smoked for decades? why do we choose to allow a 24 week premature infant to be treated..costing hundreds of thousands dollars to treat and most likely ends up severly delayed? why do we allow doctors ,lawyers and insurances companys to reap uncountable profits from medical care? as a Christian who works in healthcare I struggle with these moral dilemmas.Obama care...pleeez lets look at big picture.

Edited February 4, 2011 by stcalixtus

[pam]

Why is it that many of us choose to ignore the plight of others in this world? millions die from lack of basic medical care and yet we choose to allow chemotherapy on a eighty two year old woman with lung cancer who has smoked for decades? why do we choose to allow a 24 week premature infant to be treated..costing hundreds of thousands dollars to treat and most likely ends up severly delayed? why do we allow doctors ,lawyers and insurances companys to reap uncountable profits from medical care? as a Christian who works in healthcare I struggle with these moral dilemmas.Obama care...pleeez lets look at big picture.

Sounds like a science fiction movie where they killed off the unhealthy and only allowed the strong to live to make a perfect society. Also sounds rather heartless. Well this is not a perfect society. People make unwise choices. Who are any of us to make a decision as to who lives or who dies? All lives are precious.

[Sali]

I agree that American health care is good, I really do. I have been treated in hospital here, treated well and there are more luxuries than in the UK.

I was born and brought up in the UK and it's really not as bad as the commercials on American TV want to make it out to be. It's saved a few of my family's lives as well as my own. I got very good treatment and so did my family. It's nice to be able to take a sick child to the doctor without having to worry about where the money is going to come from.

The problem I have atm is that my husband is unemployed. He and my children are covered by medicaid. I'm not so lucky. I'm a LEGAL immigrant and am not entitled to medicaid so I am left with no coverage whatsoever! How is this a problem? I need to see a specialist, yet not one will see me without paying a couple of hundred dollars upfront, which I don't have. My husband has paid American taxes for years. I am the mother and wife of American Citizens, but no medical treatment for me, unless it is life or death. So I stay living in pain. This is where this system lets people down.

[stcalixtus]

Sounds like a science fiction movie where they killed off the unhealthy and only allowed the strong to live to make a perfect society. Also sounds rather heartless. Well this is not a perfect society. People make unwise choices. Who are any of us to make a decision as to who lives or who dies? All lives are precious.

it is a fact that millions die from lack of basic health care, that is a flat fact that IS well documented and you are heartless to not care about others in Africa,Haiti ECT.YOU! have made a decision to ignore their plight..you are heartless:eek: need I round up the proof for you?the statistics? I help those truly in need in other nations..how about you? let us redistribute the healthcare to all on a fair basis..that is the Christian way, to call out the greedy who profit from healtcare and those that choose to ignore our fellow man in far away places.Please, we are not talking about the Nazis here:huh: guess your OK with the neonatalogist who makes a million a year and passes it on the government..and eventually the taxpayer, or the oncologist who makes that much and more.. or the pharmaceutical company pigs, wow they are incredible. get your facts together before you preach to me. Edited February 4, 2011 by stcalixtus