posted April 01, 2012 03:41 PM            

This is true on all points. As are the other legal issues those against O'BomberCare have raised. Those legal issues are matters of long accepted legal jurisprudence.

O'BomberCare lovers need to get past their delusional thinking...that the federal government can do any damned thing they please...upon a majority vote and signature of a president...(small p here}. Even if a majority of Americans were applauding O'BomberCare...and they most certainly are NOT...it wouldn't matter. Even if O'BomberCare served a most useful purpose for most people...and it certainly doesn't...it still wouldn't matter.

If O'BomberCare violates the constitutional or legal rights of even one (1) US citizen and they file suit...or states file suit on behalf of their citizens...and they have...then, O'BomberCare must be stricken by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

"My understanding is that you are free to be insured by whomever you like, which means you choose the contract you wish to enter into. The mandate ensures that you enter a contract, yes, but doesn't specify which contract or with whom."...acoustic

This is another specious argument.

The mandate forces people to enter into Interstate Commerce...against their will. O'BomberCare attempts to say that ALL citizens ALREADY enter into Interstate Commerce when they, now...or in the future will seek medical care.

But, citizens do not now enter into Interstate Commerce when they voluntarily sign on for an insurance policy...the nature of which and companies which issue these policies ARE regulated by the various states NOW and there's an insurance monopoly within most or all states. There is NO Interstate Commerce involved when a citizen chooses to enter voluntarily into a contract with a state approved and regulated insurance company....and citizens of one state cannot purchase health insurance across state lines. Period.

There are additional problems with O'BomberCare which have not been mentioned or even brought up anywhere I've seen.

Pray tell me what use a single woman has for a health insurance policy which covers her for, male impotence, for testicular cancer, or any other male related disease.

Pray tell me what use a single male has for a health insurance policy which covers him for...breast examinations, breast cancer or any other female related disease.

Pray tell me what use any young American..married or single has for a health insurance policy which requires insurance companies to cover children...they don't have and may never have...until they are 26 years of age and living at home.

Yet all these coverages are mandated by the federal government to be covered in EVERY insurance policy under O'BomberCare.

Each and every hazard insured against by an insurance company adds to the premium costs to insureds...whether they need it or not or ever will need it in the future.

Let me state for the record that I'm never going to need insurance coverage for breast cancer, breast x-rays or even breast examinations...or for vaginal examinations or vaginal infections or hysterectomy..or any other female injury or disease.

Yet, O'BomberCare forces insurance companies to issue policies covering all these hazards..in every policy and attempts to force me to purchase a policy covering hazards I'm never going to need and couldn't possibly use.

posted April 01, 2012 04:17 PM            

Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time.

There are three ways the health care law could meet its end. The first, obviously, is the Supreme Court could declare some or all of it unconstitutional in June.

If it gets past that hurdle, the law also could be ended by Election 2012. If a Republican president is elected, the GOP will almost certainly also win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While the details might take time, a Republican sweep in November would ultimately end the Obama experiment.

But even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking. Recent estimates suggest that the law would cause 11 million people to lose their employer-provided insurance and be forced onto a government-backed insurance plan. That's a problem because 77 percent of those who now have insurance rate their current coverage as good or excellent. Only 3 percent rate their coverage as poor. For most of the 11 million forced to change their insurance coverage then, it will be received as bad news and create a pool of vocally unhappy voters.

Additionally, the cost estimates for funding the program are likely to keep going up. Eighty-one percent of voters expect it to cost more than projected, and recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate voters are probably right. But it's not the narrow specifics and cost estimates that guarantee the ultimate demise of the president's health care plan. It's the fact that the law runs contrary to basic American values and perceptions.

This, then, is the third hurdle the law faces: Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.

Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.

Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change.

posted April 01, 2012 04:46 PM            

also FYI the average cost to britons for their unlimited coverage is about $200 a month. steep by your standards? i doubt it. and the fact that so many private corporations have wanted and still DO want in to the NHS ... indicates in fact that it is a going concern, not the money pit you seem to think it would be.

now we are not looking at the same sort of system but universal coverage is GOOD for the insurers and the insured in almost every instance. and now that gordy brown is out of the picture it looks very much like labour will be coming back in britain for that very reason.

the fact that someone brings a suit has never meant that something had to be thrown out to my knowledge. otherwise why all the anticipation of this hearing on your part? the result very much matters...

and even if the mandate is thrown out that is not the only (or in my eyes best) way of dealing with the issue of cost coverage.

plenty of people disagreed with the supreme court's decision to throw out the recount when it was put before them in a presidential election. i don't notice that those people got their "satisfaction" by claiming that the suit itself rendered the count illegal.

posted April 02, 2012 12:28 PM            

I've already posted on the first page the argument regarding interstate commerce. http://t.co/3JhhpLxK

I don't think the gender-specific medical ailments is really that great an argument. People at all stages in life, and of either gender will have medical needs particular to their status. I don't see you railing against taxpayers paying for Medicare.

quote:

---

O'BomberCare also forces insurance companies to issue ALL health insurance policies with coverage for children living at home until age 26. Now, pray tell me, why in the hell do I need that coverage..and why in the hell I should be required to pay for that coverage. All my children are over age 26 and are not living at home.

---

posted April 19, 2012 01:19 PM            

insurance companies have been doing their level best to make as much money as they can before you find out they are giving you the "bum's rush"...but you have to know your rights as by the new law before you can implement them:

Welcome to Consumers Union's action team, where we work together to make products safer and save you money. Did you get a tax refund this year? No? Well, we dug around and found health insurance companies could owe consumers big refunds this summer, thanks to the new healthcare law!

One Aetna company is estimated to owe $46 million to customers nationwide. That's real money back in your pockets. Savings are adding up in states too. A WellPoint insurer in Missouri may pay $29 million to individual and small-business policyholders. And Florida small-businesses using Blue CrossBlue Shield are expecting $45 million in refunds - a boost to struggling entrepeneurs.

But lobbyists are still trying to undermine this law. Next week House members will take up a bill that will scale back rate cuts andrefunds. And your own state Insurance Commissioner who enforces thelaw is under pressure to back off as well. Let the law work! Tell your leaders to support insurance rate cuts andrefunds.
http://cu.convio.net/site/R?i=5qftGCJfBnqxdR-_q2AKTw

Getting a handle on insurance costs is critical for our nation.Insurers now can't spend more than 20 percent of your premium on their administrative costs, CEO salaries and excess profits. Spend more, and they must lower rates or refund the difference. Our early analysis found this incentive is working. Countless insurance companies are spending more of your dollars on needed medical care and less on their overhead. And we're discovering more expected refunds and savings each day. Unfortunately, these savings are under attack right now! Tell your leaders to support the law.
http://cu.convio.net/site/R?i=2NMAgnud9IWE_6bo24e-9A

Insurance companies hate the idea of giving your money back. Make sure they're held to it by having your friends and family join you intaking action. Refunds are due this summer. It's your money, fight for it!

posted April 19, 2012 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
oh and i was forgetting the christian scientists...however to claim religious exemption you have to be able to show you BELONG to such a religion...just as you used to have to be a quaker to get conscientious objection on religious grounds from the armed forces..

---

You don't. Thank Goodness

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 19, 2012 08:41 PM            

....And *what* is this exactly,

quote:

---

The Obama administration is funneling about $500 million to the IRS to help set up the president’s controversial health-care law, according to a report out Monday, plowing ahead despite challenges to the law at the Supreme Court and attacks from members of Congress.

The Hill newspaper reported Monday morning that President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services has transferred nearly $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year. The IRS is responsible for several provisions of the law, including the individual mandate at the heart of the challenge before the Supreme Court.

---

quote:

---

The White House has said there isn’t a fallback option if the mandate is tossed out, and that it expects the law to be upheld.

---

posted April 20, 2012 08:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
i have a religious objection to auto insurance. think i can duck out on that?

i don't think the religious objection will get you out of the $55/mo penalty...and if you have been carrying insurance already it will make a really lame excuse which likely will not fly.

---

posted April 20, 2012 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
i have a religious objection to auto insurance. think i can duck out on that?

i don't think the religious objection will get you out of the $55/mo penalty...and if you have been carrying insurance already it will make a really lame excuse which likely will not fly.

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 21, 2012 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
well, randall, that may be. but if you are already carrying insurance why would you cut off your nose to spite the mandate? i consider your ploy to be extremely cynical, is that how you regard religion, as an easy out for unpleasant events?

i don't think the waiver waives the penalty in any case, though i am not sure about that...most people/entities who have received waivers are already providing insurance to their employees, so it's really only a "technical" waiver...

---

Kat, I have a proposition. When I get really successful in my psychic business, I will send you on a sabbatical to a Socialist Country. You can come back and do a book report for us at GU

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 21, 2012 02:46 PM            

you are already paying for the coverage of uninsured people - since the 80s - and the consequent spike in medical prices and insurance rates that are "justified" by that very coverage of the uninsured.

randall, no one is usurping your health freedoms. you can still go wherever you want and take care of yourself how you like.

they ARE usurping your contribution to the general health. which if you don't want it is only 50 bucks a month. i don't care for the mandate myself, FYI. however, in this "capitalist" society, the insurers demanded some t!t for their tat. the mandate was the (REPUBLICAN) idea to cover their corporate profit butts.

we will still have to wait and see how the court voted, but i would be very surprised if it were unanimous in any case. though i don't have much truck with a supreme court that considers itself and its members above the law and entitled to legislate from the bench, that is what we have got at the moment...

the entirety of the healthcare act was not on trial. the mandate was. we'll see soon enough how they interpreted the case.

posted April 22, 2012 10:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
ami i have a proposition for you. stop sniping and snarking at me and i will do the same for you. i have more experience of "socialist" countries than you do i warrant. though israel has some pretty heavy socialist policies i must admit.

you are already paying for the coverage of uninsured people - since the 80s - and the consequent spike in medical prices and insurance rates that are "justified" by that very coverage of the uninsured.

randall, no one is usurping your health freedoms. you can still go wherever you want and take care of yourself how you like.

they ARE usurping your contribution to the general health. which if you don't want it is only 50 bucks a month. i don't care for the mandate myself, FYI. however, in this "capitalist" society, the insurers demanded some t!t for their tat. the mandate was the (REPUBLICAN) idea to cover their corporate profit butts.

we will still have to wait and see how the court voted, but i would be very surprised if it were unanimous in any case. though i don't have much truck with a supreme court that considers itself and its members above the law and entitled to legislate from the bench, that is what we have got at the moment...

the entirety of the healthcare act was not on trial. the mandate was. we'll see soon enough how they interpreted the case.

---

I don't snark

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 22, 2012 05:13 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted April 22, 2012 05:47 PM            

...I don't snark

posted April 22, 2012 06:49 PM            

quote:

---

i consider your ploy to be extremely cynical, is that how you regard religion, as an easy out for unpleasant events?

---

This is one example of your snarks. It would take me too long to get more. Lets make up

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal