If you like your health insurance, you can keep it your insurance. Period

Overland1, RN · Jan 3, 2014

The right to healthcare isn't just a "perception", it a right that is defined by law, do you disagree that those laws and program exist or that they don't actually define healthcare as a right?

Specifically which law defines "healthcare" as a right? I could not find it in the Constitution (which used to be the law of the land, despite being written several hundred years ago by a bunch of (now) dead old white guys.

The media and the politicians who pushed Obamacare through the House and Senate are referring to Obamacare as "the law of the land". Must be that it has usurped and superseded the Constitution...

MunoRN, RN · Jan 3, 2014

Specifically which law defines "healthcare" as a right? I could not find it in the Constitution (which used to be the law of the land, despite being written several hundred years ago by a bunch of (now) dead old white guys.
The media and the politicians who pushed Obamacare through the House and Senate are referring to Obamacare as "the law of the land". Must be that it has usurped and superseded the Constitution...

EMTALA. The Social Security Act. The 8th amendment.

Are you under the impression that the Constitution forbids defining healthcare as a right? Or that no laws other than the Constitution exist?

Overland1, RN · Jan 23, 2014

EMTALA. The Social Security Act. The 8th amendment.
Are you under the impression that the Constitution forbids defining healthcare as a right? Or that no laws other than the Constitution exist?

I am under no impression(s).

EMTALA. ..Emergency care to not be denied (by facilities that receive Medicare reimbursement) those who cannot pay, medical screening exams, and transfer to higher level of care when medically necessary.

Social Security Act (1935)... part of FDR's New Deal, includes CCC. In 1961, LBJ signed the Medicare Act to make available health care to recipients over 65 years old.

Eighth Amendment... No (cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail).

Thank you.

elkpark · Jan 23, 2014

The media and the politicians who pushed Obamacare through the House and Senate are referring to Obamacare as "the law of the land". Must be that it has usurped and superseded the Constitution...

The ACA is now "the law of the land" because it was legislation written and passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, just like any other piece of valid legislation. And has been upheld since then by the Supreme Court. The phrase doesn't mean anything about "usurping" or "superseding" the Constitution -- just that it is valid Federal law, the same as any other legislation passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Overland1, RN · Jan 24, 2014

The phrase "law of the land", by that standard could apply to most any law on the books that is legally enacted according to the applicable constitution. For example, I cannot legally burn down my house for an insurance settlement because there are laws against doing so, and that could also be interpreted as a "law of the land". The real and larger problem is that the term has joined so many other political talking points being heaved at us by the ruling class that we elected.

Was the enactment of Obamacare really in accordance with the intent and meaning of the U.S. Constitution? Maybe, or maybe not. It was ("deemed") passed by a legislative branch comprised of most members who did not even read it, but instead were told they would have to pass it to find out what is in it. Would any of us pass a medication in a syringe without knowledge of what exactly was in that syringe? Absolutely not, but our elected reprehensibles (yes, that is what they have become) are doing that with almost every piece of legislation presented by and to them. If a bill has a catchy name, it is a guaranteed slam dunk, because nobody wants to be criticized for opposing such a bill.

Add to this that the terms of Obamacare have been changed since it was enacted, with many of those changes not approved by Congress, but rather by press conference declaring it is changed. When a President... any President from either party (this is about party, no?)... declares he has a phone and a pen, and will make changes in the laws with or without action by Congress, we have a more serious problem here, and it appears precious few care about that.

MunoRN, RN · Jan 24, 2014

I am under no impression(s).
EMTALA. ..Emergency care to not be denied (by facilities that receive Medicare reimbursement) those who cannot pay, medical screening exams, and transfer to higher level of care when medically necessary.
Social Security Act (1935)... part of FDR's New Deal, includes CCC. In 1961, LBJ signed the Medicare Act to make available health care to recipients over 65 years old.
Eighth Amendment... No (cruel and unusual punishment, excessive bail).
Thank you.

All of which establish some form of healthcare as a right.

MunoRN, RN · Jan 24, 2014

The phrase "law of the land", by that standard could apply to most any law on the books that is legally enacted according to the applicable constitution. For example, I cannot legally burn down my house for an insurance settlement because there are laws against doing so, and that could also be interpreted as a "law of the land". The real and larger problem is that the term has joined so many other political talking points being heaved at us by the ruling class that we elected.
Was the enactment of Obamacare really in accordance with the intent and meaning of the U.S. Constitution? Maybe, or maybe not. It was ("deemed") passed by a legislative branch comprised of most members who did not even read it, but instead were told they would have to pass it to find out what is in it. Would any of us pass a medication in a syringe without knowledge of what exactly was in that syringe? Absolutely not, but our elected reprehensibles (yes, that is what they have become) are doing that with almost every piece of legislation presented by and to them. If a bill has a catchy name, it is a guaranteed slam dunk, because nobody wants to be criticized for opposing such a bill.
Add to this that the terms of Obamacare have been changed since it was enacted, with many of those changes not approved by Congress, but rather by press conference declaring it is changed. When a President... any President from either party (this is about party, no?)... declares he has a phone and a pen, and will make changes in the laws with or without action by Congress, we have a more serious problem here, and it appears precious few care about that.

Whether or not a law is Constitutional is defined by the Supreme Court.

The ACA was available for review more than 2 months before the Senate voted on it and about 4 months before the House voted on it.

As with pretty much every other law in US history, it's specifics are determined by the various agencies that the law defers to, thus the "you'll have to pass it to know what's in it" statement, which I agree, was not well phrased and left a lot of room for confusion among those who may not be familiar with how our laws work.

The executive branch is, and alway has been responsible for the implementation of laws, which has alway involved adjusting when and how various components of the law are implemented, no congressional approval has ever been required for this.

Overland1, RN · Jan 24, 2014

The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws; the Justices are simply people who may serve for the remainder of their lifetimes who have been nominated by the President and approved by a vote of the Senate.

"Not well phrased"? It was obviously intentional. No law should ever be passed without knowing all of what is in it. The "I'm not reading all that" defense should never be tolerated in any legislative (nor interpretive) process.

What is clear is that there is much work to be done here.

MunoRN, RN · Jan 24, 2014

The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws; the Justices are simply people who may serve for the remainder of their lifetimes who have been nominated by the President and approved by a vote of the Senate.
"Not well phrased"? It was obviously intentional. No law should ever be passed without knowing all of what is in it. The "I'm not reading all that" defense should never be tolerated in any legislative (nor interpretive) process.
What is clear is that there is much work to be done here.

There is certainly more work to be done, so what changes would you make?

Overland1, RN · Jan 25, 2014

Will post more when I get to a real keyboard.

Overland1, RN · Jan 25, 2014

There is certainly more work to be done, so what changes would you make?

OK, I am back at home on a real computer with a real keyboard... fat fingers on a phone (Galaxy S4) "keypad" are a PITA. Please pardon the delayed response.

First, and I am apolitically serious about this, I would scrap it and start over. The costs in just the financial expenditures (i.e., armed IRS agents and more of them, more committees and board to oversee the program, "navigators" - some of whom do no better at their "job" than do some TSA employees, etc.) are just the beginning. The mere fact that we were not given the truth up front about Obamacare right from the start by those who set it up. is but one reason. Beyond that, the program depends upon a strong economy with a lot of tax revenue, but we are seeing the economy wallowing (and have been for a while) with no real improvement in sight.

That Obamacare is mandatory says something as well... so good it has to be mandatory. If it is that good, how about setting it up so people can opt in or out as their needs and finances dictate? If it must indeed be mandatory, why not force all those government employees, elected and appointed officials, and exempted persons on it? The more we are finding out about "what's in it", the more we are realizing that maybe this is not only about health care, but rather about control. A government that "provides" your health care can - and most certainly will - ensure that its costs are reduced by telling you how to live and what not to do. The ultimate control of our health care will be when (not if) a "single-payer system" is established. Who will be that "single" payer? Not one person, but rather, it will be those of us who are working and paying increased taxes, all while the incentives to work harder, earn more, and improve our lives (and country) are diminished. "Single-payer" is just another bureaucratic talking point, and nothing more - it sounds good to some, but needs to be more carefully investigated for the consequences.

I am not ready to hand over decisions about my health care to some bureaucrats in Washington, DC... even if they finally get that awful web site working any better.

How about doing away with regulations the reduce or eliminate competition among insurers? I can buy all sorts of other insurances from any company in the US in any state. Why not health insurance? We all pay too much for insurance, but now we will have to pay for coverage we do not need (I seriously do not need coverage for contraceptives).

We all pay too much in taxes as well. How about tax incentives for people to set up health care savings accounts (like IRA's). Even without the tax incentives (they would be helpful), a savings plan for health care could be a great investment. Incidentally, I am rarely a fan of using tax policy as an incentive for anything, unless it involves lowering taxes and government spending in general.

The real problem with my suggestions is that, if implemented, they would turn the power back to the states and ultimately to the individuals. Most politicians enjoy their stature as part of the ruling class because they do not have to live by the laws they impose upon the rest of us. This is directly opposite the intention of the founders, and of the framers of our legal system, but we are becoming a nation of "free stuff" and of self-proclaimed victims awaiting the next panacea from the government. A politician comes along, promises something for nothing, all while not being truthful about the costs and consequences, and many people flock to that person or party... almost like cheering for a favorite sports team, although the costs involved are enormously higher. This has become a government that, if some person or group opposes it, the IRS is sent to them for an "audit". Did the founders and framers really envision an IRS that 'has what it takes to take what you have'? Heck, they didn't even envision an IRS, let alone an armed one.

Are we really ready to continue down the road to mediocrity or worse for ourselves and our descendants? Once we commit to that path, climbing back out of the hole will be a monumental, if not impossible, task.

Overland1, RN · Jan 25, 2014

But wait... there's more!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/01/24/aetna-ceo-we-may-have-to-pull-out-of-obamacare-or-heavily-hike-premiums-n1783744?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC on Wednesday that Obamacare has failed to attract the uninsured, and he offered a scenario in which the insurance company could be forced to pull out of program. The company will be submitting Obamacare rates for 2015 on May 15. "Are they going to be double-digit [increases] or are we going to get beat up because they're double-digit or are we just going to have to pull out of the program?"
Bertolini asked..."Those questions can't be answered until we see the population we have today. And we really don't have a good view on that." He said that so far, Obamacare has just shifted people who were insured in the individual market to the public exchanges where they could get a better deal on a subsidy for coverage. "We see only 11 percent of the population is actually people that were firmly uninsured that are now insured. So [it] didn't really eat into the uninsured population."