Appeals Court finally gets it right.... ruling against forced ObamaCare

[Faithful One]

Finally something right from the Courts in response to suit filed by 26 States !

An appeals court strikes down the requirement that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.

Yea; now if we could just throw out the ENTIRE thing along with the authors of this hellish bill ,(don't worry the President is history because of it),..... it would go a long way in saving our economy from debt overload.....Keep praying , it makes all the difference.

Faithful

BTW, judging by the picture of the disappointed looking President included in the link above which was taken as he was speaking at a dinner celebrating Ramada, I guess we could say this court decision was ANOTHER victory against Muslim Radicals.

[the rookie]

Clinton appointees, at that. Who would have thunk it?

[Faithful One]

Clinton appointees, at that. Who would have thunk it?

Good point; compared to Obama even Clinton appointees are CONSERVATIVE !

....

[the rookie]

Good point; compared to Obama even Clinton appointees are CONSERVATIVE !

....

Agreed. I think we will feel the ramifications of an Obama court (Federal and Supreme) long after he has moved on, unfortunately.

[Saved7]

Oops, I didn't see this thread.

I'm glad to see some judges had the sense to recognize that at least some part of the new health care law was unconstitutional. Particularly that part about having to buy some kind of health care or be fined. I mean, if someone can't afford health care, then how do they expect to collect on a fine? Or what, will they start jailing people for not buying it? Then they would have a free roof and meal, not to mention clothes and health care.

[Faithful One]

Oops, I didn't see this thread. I mean, if someone can't afford health care, then how do they expect to collect on a fine? e.

I think the idea was that you couldn't say no because they would take it out of your check as a withholding whether you 'bought it' or not....like they do for w - 2 taxes withholdings.http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/04/h...lding-program/ And if you had company health insurance they would even tax you on that portion that your company paid on your behalf.Absolute theivery... it shall not prevail.

[thethirdtuttle]

While I understand that, in an ideal world, everyone would have health insurance that they could afford and the healthcare system would be efficient and work the way it is supposed to. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in the real world. Which means that there are going to be problems, ineptitude, waste, corruption, mistakes, etc., until Jesus returns. Is Obamacare the best way to go about fixing the severely broken and messed up healthcare system here in the U.S.? I honestly don't know. But, I do know it's silly and counter-intuitive to make something that you don't do illegal. I mean, they might as well throw me in jail for going to a gun show and NOT purchasing an AK-47. Or, make it illegal to walk up to a drug dealer on the street corner, ask to see his merchandise, and then walk away without buying anything. I mean, come on! Let's get serious. Would it be nice if everybody in America had affordable health insurance? Sure, but mandating that they buy it is just plain ridiculous IMHO.

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

[Free Indeed]

While I understand that, in an ideal world, everyone would have health insurance that they could afford and the healthcare system would be efficient and work the way it is supposed to. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. We live in the real world. Which means that there are going to be problems, ineptitude, waste, corruption, mistakes, etc., until Jesus returns. Is Obamacare the best way to go about fixing the severely broken and messed up healthcare system here in the U.S.? I honestly don't know. But, I do know it's silly and counter-intuitive to make something that you don't do illegal. I mean, they might as well throw me in jail for going to a gun show and NOT purchasing an AK-47. Or, make it illegal to walk up to a drug dealer on the street corner, ask to see his merchandise, and then walk away without buying anything. I mean, come on! Let's get serious. Would it be nice if everybody in America had affordable health insurance? Sure, but mandating that they buy it is just plain ridiculous IMHO.

I actually agree with this. Shamefully, the United States is the only advanced industrialized nation in the world that does not have a universal health care system. This is reflected in the fact that we have a higher infant mortality rate, and lower life expectancy, than does Canada and the nations of western Europe.

I applaud Obama's undertsanding that there is a serious problem here, but his idea of a remedy was not much better. He wants to have universal care, but without interfering in the private insurance racket. It just can't be done.

Of course, Obama is smart enough to know this, but did not want to challenge those in his own party who were owned by insurance corporations. So the result was a very mediocre bill with a few very questionable clauses.

We can see by looking at other nations what works and what doesn't. Private for-profit health insurance just does not work. We need a complete makeover, and move to a single-payer system. This would expand full Medicare coverage to all US citizens, and to all legal foreigners who work inside the US and pay FICA taxes.

The cost of our current system is unbearable. The US government pays more in medical than in any other advanced nation, and yet its the only one that doesn't provide universal coverage. This is due to the nature of the for-profit insurance system, which is in fact nothing but a legalized ponzi scheme. I invite everyone to investigate the cost-benefit analysis of single payer ("Medicare For All") coverage. I also invite people here to discuss the matter with our fellow forum member, NHL Fever, who is a Canadian physician, and is very knowledgeable in this topic.

Also see Physicians For a National Health Program, a national organization of US medical professionals who stand for implementing a Canadian-style universal health insurance "Medicare For All" program in the USA:
http://www.pnhp.org/

Lastly, please write your Congress representatives in support of the Conyers-Kucinich bill, HR 676. Since 1991, the Congressional Budget Office has consistently predicted that this bill, if passed, would save 40% of federal medical costs per year simply by providing universal coverage and eliminating for-profit overhead costs. That's a lot of money that could be saved to balance the budget, not to even mention the ramifications of having a healthier society, the moral advantage of universal access to health care, and the benefits of having more money available for scientific medical research and education.

[the rookie]

I actually agree with this. Shamefully, the United States is the only advanced industrialized nation in the world that does not have a universal health care system. This is reflected in the fact that we have a higher infant mortality rate, and lower life expectancy, than does Canada and the nations of western Europe.

I applaud Obama's undertsanding that there is a serious problem here, but his idea of a remedy was not much better. He wants to have universal care, but without interfering in the private insurance racket. It just can't be done.

Of course, Obama is smart enough to know this, but did not want to challenge those in his own party who were owned by insurance corporations. So the result was a very mediocre bill with a few very questionable clauses.

We can see by looking at other nations what works and what doesn't. Private for-profit health insurance just does not work. We need a complete makeover, and move to a single-payer system. This would expand full Medicare coverage to all US citizens, and to all legal foreigners who work inside the US and pay FICA taxes.

The cost of our current system is unbearable. The US government pays more in medical than in any other advanced nation, and yet its the only one that doesn't provide universal coverage. This is due to the nature of the for-profit insurance system, which is in fact nothing but a legalized ponzi scheme. I invite everyone to investigate the cost-benefit analysis of single payer ("Medicare For All") coverage. I also invite people here to discuss the matter with our fellow forum member, NHL Fever, who is a Canadian physician, and is very knowledgeable in this topic.

Also see Physicians For a National Health Program, a national organization of US medical professionals who stand for implementing a Canadian-style universal health insurance "Medicare For All" program in the USA:
http://www.pnhp.org/

Lastly, please write your Congress representatives in support of the Conyers-Kucinich bill, HR 676. Since 1991, the Congressional Budget Office has consistently predicted that this bill, if passed, would save 40% of federal medical costs per year simply by providing universal coverage and eliminating for-profit overhead costs. That's a lot of money that could be saved to balance the budget, not to even mention the ramifications of having a healthier society, the moral advantage of universal access to health care, and the benefits of having more money available for scientific medical research and education.

Great post. Interesting points - gave me some thoughts to chew on

[Boo]

We would probably be better off not using life expectancy charts to show the benefits of a single-payer health care system.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/stat...ntry-2009.html We all know that diet, exercise, stress levels, and good or bad habits all affect those kinds of things. That applies to infanr mortality rates as well.

The discussion about the benefits of such a system also does not yet consider the affect of the number of doctors that we would have in America once the government takes control of them.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...macare_45.html

And thirdly, excusing Obama for his aggressive take-over of our personal choices because those in his party wouldn't like it suggests that he lacks intergrity and forethought - but we already knew that.

We may be the only industrialize nation without national health care, but that does not mean our health care system in broken. What is broken is our legal system, our tort system, and our law enforcement system. Our health care costs are affected by all three of those other failures.

It is interesting that our congress mandates health care for all who show up in a hospital emergency room and refuse to pay for their care, yet nobody complains about how forcing a hospital to provide care is never seen as unconstitutional. Yet, because of laws like that, we who DO pay for our care through medical insurance end up paying the bill - which is driven up because of having to provide medical services for free.

Would it not be better to fix the failures that drive up our cost of care rather than ram something else down our throats that people don't want?

As for suggesting that the Canadian system actually works; well, many Canadians don't think so. They really hate the idea of our system being broken with this unconsitutional law; as they depend on American health care systems to provide care when the Canandian system won't.

[tango]

We can see by looking at other nations what works and what doesn't. Private for-profit health insurance just does not work. We need a complete makeover, and move to a single-payer system. This would expand full Medicare coverage to all US citizens, and to all legal foreigners who work inside the US and pay FICA taxes.

The cost of our current system is unbearable. The US government pays more in medical than in any other advanced nation, and yet its the only one that doesn't provide universal coverage. This is due to the nature of the for-profit insurance system, which is in fact nothing but a legalized ponzi scheme. I invite everyone to investigate the cost-benefit analysis of single payer ("Medicare For All") coverage. I also invite people here to discuss the matter with our fellow forum member, NHL Fever, who is a Canadian physician, and is very knowledgeable in this topic.

There are very real advantages to a socialised health care system (I live in the UK, where we've had the NHS since before I was born). I must admit there's a lot of comfort in knowing that I can see a doctor without having to worry about his fee, and if I'm diagnosed with something major I'm not going to have to face the choice between selling everything I own to fund treatment, or dying (I know a lady very well who needed chemotherapy that cost something like $8-10,000 per month, and who didn't have to pay any of that cost herself).

Unfortunately it's not necessarily as simple as "private health bad, public health good". For all the benefits associated with the public health care system it also has a lot of flaws. Hospital cleaning is one casualty of our system, where the task was contracted to the lowest bidder with entirely predictable results. We also see a proliferation of things like personal TV screens, phones etc at bedsides - while this is all well and good in theory it does mean if you're sharing a ward with someone hard of hearing who wakes at 3am and turns their TV on loud you don't get much rest. Somewhere along the way the right to watch TV trumped the right to rest and recuperate.

We also see other issues with cost control. For all an insurance company wants to make a profit and therefore it's in their interests to deny a claim if they think they can get away with it, in our system the government is the ultimate payer and so the government gets to restrict treatments. In the UK we've recently had proposals to restrict treatment for smokers (despite the fact smokers pay a huge amount in tax on their cigarettes), talk of restricting treatments to people who are obese (although naturally the obese don't get any reduction in their tax bill to match the reduction in services) and so on.

The current system in the US, from what I can see from my side of the water, also appears to be broken for reasons you Americans probably know much better than I do. I'd just urge some caution not to trade a broken system for another broken system.

[HaveMercy]

It is interesting that our congress mandates health care for all who show up in a hospital emergency room and refuse to pay for their care, yet nobody complains about how forcing a hospital to provide care is never seen as unconstitutional. Yet, because of laws like that, we who DO pay for our care through medical insurance end up paying the bill - which is driven up because of having to provide medical services for free.

People "refuse to pay" for their care because they aren't lucky enough to work at jobs that provide health insurance and they can't afford to buy health insurance for themselves because they are living paycheck to paycheck. If you can't afford to buy health insurance then you can't afford to pay for insanely expensive medical bills. Americans don't like the thought of people not being able to get medical care if they are in an emergency, so in this way we do have universal health care, we just don't have it with any of the benefits. People not being able to pay for their medical bills does drive up costs, but what would be your solution? For emergency rooms to refuse medical care to people without insurance? Someone is brought to the emergency room bleeding of gunshot wounds or suffering from appendicitis and the emergency room just turns them away?

Healthcare isn't a luxury item people can easily go without; it's often times the difference between life and death. And yet in this country it's getting more and more out of the reach of the average American.

[Free Indeed]

To Tango:

Understood. While I believe the UK system is overall superior to that of the US, I think the single-payer plan is better than both. Single payer is not actually "socialized medicine" in the UK sense. Physicians remain in private practice, and hospitals are still allowed to be private.

It is actually, instead, "socialized insurance". We already have socialized insurance in the United States (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.), but it is not comprehensive, and is not universal. Universalizing Medicare would allow us to dump Medicaid and the other programs, offer universal access, and save 40% per year of what our government currently spends on health care.

[tango]

To Tango:

Understood. While I believe the UK system is overall superior to that of the US, I think the single-payer plan is better than both. Single payer is not actually "socialized medicine" in the UK sense. Physicians remain in private practice, and hospitals are still allowed to be private.

I think the UK system has the potential to be a lot better, although so much depends on whether the person going through the hospital system has a good experience or a bad experience. As well as the lady who received six figures worth of chemotherapy (and a whole host of treatment on top), I also know people who paid into the system all their working lives but then spent just about every penny they had saved for a private heart operation because the waiting list for the operation on the NHS was longer than the husband was likely to survive.

It is actually, instead, "socialized insurance". We already have socialized insurance in the United States (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.), but it is not comprehensive, and is not universal. Universalizing Medicare would allow us to dump Medicaid and the other programs, offer universal access, and save 40% per year of what our government currently spends on health care.

I can see how that has the potential to deliver the best of both worlds but at the same time it could also deliver the worst of all worlds. I went to the hospital with an elderly family member in the US and was rather surprised to find her doctor wanting to take a blood test to see if her condition was hereditary. I pointed out that the only surviving blood relatives were elderly and so queried whether it mattered if the condition was hereditary and the doctor completely ignored the question and ordered the test. I can only assume he ordered the test because she was well insured and the test would be paid for.

When I see the idea of socialized insurance coupled with private practise it seems to me like a license to print money for the private practise. Unless there is something to rein in the excesses of the less scrupulous I can see all sorts of pointless tests being done to rake in the money from the socialized insurance fund, with the result that largely pointless procedures that are non-invasive but profitable get done, while more necessary procedures that are riskier and less profitable are denied.

[bdh]

In an ideal world everyone gets health care, a nice house, a nice car, a dog and a pool ... and everything else. The reality is this world is not perfect and many simply can't afford it.

However, cost aside, it's a matter of choice. It always MUST be about choice. The Bill of Rights of every civilized country tries to enshrine the inalienable rights of the individual to choose - especially money matters. For example, there are people with lots of money that don't have medial insurance because they don't want it. It does not make sense to me not to have it if one can afford it, but that is neither here nor there - it is their choice to have it or not. It should never be the right of any government to prescribe.