Obamacare? what are your thoughts

So you have no alternative for the 8 million Americans who would lose their health coverage if Obamacare is overturned?

You're not understanding me. I'm not trying to find a solution. There isn't one. Healthcare and health insurance should be private like any other industries. As I said, do nothing, however, a reduction in abuse of the myriad social welfare programs that we already have in place would be outstanding!

I'm not a lady, but I don't think it's the place of the United States government to regulate insurance. That seems more of a states rights issue. To add, I think the whole thing is a botched, ridiculous, monstrosity of policy that needs to be banished and quickly forgotten about.

I believe that the regulation of business by the federal government is instrumental in pursuit and protection of the "general welfare" of the American people. You are the one making the argument that the term 'welfare' is specific to health care, not me.

I was simply answering your question about 'the place of government to regulate insurance'. I argue that such regulation is the responsibility of the government when the people are being abused by the corporate entities and interests.

I believe that the regulation of business by the federal government is instrumental in pursuit and protection of the "general welfare" of the American people. You are the one making the argument that the term 'welfare' is specific to health care, not me.

I was simply answering your question about 'the place of government to regulate insurance'. I argue that such regulation is the responsibility of the government when the people are being abused by the corporate entities and interests.

I'm questioning your use of the Preamble. I don't understand your use of it. Nothing in the Preamble provides a notion that the our federal government can or should regulate insurance or even control access to healthcare. I'm merely trying to dissect it and locate the phrase that supports your argument.

I completely disagree. Insurance is a privilege. It is not a right.

(...)

Merely giving away free stuff or making what most work hard for more accessible to those who don't does nothing positive for the State.

I clipped the middle of your post because those two parts right there summarize why we will never agree. You feel that people do not have a right to insurance - and thanks to skyrocketing costs, no insurance in today's world means no healthcare. Ergo, you feel that people do not have a right to healthcare. I disagree.

Your final sentence is abhorrent to me. I don't give a rat's patootie about the "state" when people are dying from lack of healthcare. Actual living people are more important.

People deserve healthcare. People are ENTITLED to healthcare. (Gasp, entitlement! Get the fainting couch!) If you disagree, you prioritize something other than human beings who deserve "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I'm questioning your use of the Preamble. I don't understand your use of it. Nothing in the Preamble provides a notion that the our federal government can or should regulate insurance or even control access to healthcare. I'm merely trying to dissect it and locate the phrase that supports your argument.

GENERAL WELFARE.

It has been said several times. GENERAL. WELFARE.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge that health falls under that is astounding.

ETA: That was rather short of me, but it is frustrating for you to willfully ignore what several posters have said plainly. Here, have a few links.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

Obviously, those of us here posting are not Congress (OR ARE WE?! *dun dun duuuh!*) and so cannot make the legal determination that healthcare is general welfare. But we also cannot say it ISN'T, for the same reason.

Ok, that was legal-ese, how about kid friendly language?

http://kids.laws.com/preamble-of-the-constitution

Promote the general welfare: This phrase meant that the well-being of the citizens would be taken care of as well as possible by the Federal government.

"Well-being of the citizens" . . . sure sounds like healthcare to me!

What does the Heritage Foundation say?

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/0/essays/1/preamble

By definition "general" means applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts or special interests. A single example will illustrate the point. In the late 1790s Alexander Hamilton, an outspoken advocate of loose construction of the Constitution as well as of using the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify a wide range of "implied powers," became convinced that a federally financed system of what would soon be called internal improvements—building roads, dredging rivers, digging canals—was in the national interest. But, since each project would be of immediate advantage only to the area where it was located, none could properly be regarded as being in the general welfare. Accordingly, Hamilton believed a constitutional amendment would be necessary if internal improvements were to be undertaken.

"Applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts or special interests." So, getting healthcare to the WHOLE population, and not just the rich who can afford private insurance?

That was the conservative interpretation, now let's go liberal. From American Progress:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2010/03/23/7452/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed-hope-for-activist-judges/

Even though Congress’s powers are not unlimited, they are still quite sweeping. One of Congress’s broadest powers, for example, is its power to spend money. Congress is free to spend money, so long as it does so to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” For this reason, the provisions of health reform that create new subsidies or otherwise spend federal dollars are clearly constitutional. There is no question that a program designed to ensure that every American has affordable health coverage—no matter what their income or employment status—provides for the “general welfare” of this country.

(Emphasis mine.) Well gee, that's exactly what we've been saying.

I'm questioning your use of the Preamble. I don't understand your use of it. Nothing in the Preamble provides a notion that the our federal government can or should regulate insurance or even control access to healthcare. I'm merely trying to dissect it and locate the phrase that supports your argument.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How would you suggest that the government promote the general welfare of the citizens if a corporate entity or industry is abusing them for profit? Are corporations and industries more powerful than the government? Should they be?

How would you suggest that the government promote the general welfare of the citizens if a corporate entity or industry is abusing them for profit? Are corporations and industries more powerful than the government? Should they be?

You're right, and I fully agree that government, at all levels, has a duty by and for the people to regulate some industry in order to protect the people. However, I don't agree that regulating insurance the point of making it a requirement that all persons have it or suffer a penalty embodies the true nature of protection.

The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Securities Exchange Act are good examples of protection the people at those particular junctures in history, and today the SEC continues to do a decent job in that area. I don't think the Affordable Care Act really mirrors any of this.

You're right, and I fully agree that government, at all levels, has a duty by and for the people to regulate some industry in order to protect the people. However, I don't agree that regulating insurance the point of making it a requirement that all persons have it or suffer a penalty embodies the true nature of protection.

The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Securities Exchange Act are good examples of protection the people at those particular junctures in history, and today the SEC continues to do a decent job in that area. I don't think the Affordable Care Act really mirrors any of this.

At least you admitted that the Federal Government has an obligation to the people rather than to the profit of industry.

I too would rather that we were not mandating that people purchase health insurance. I would prefer that the government had protected us from the industry by expanding Medicare and Medicaid to allow all citizens access based upon income. I don't expect you to agree with that, and I am really quite okay with that disagreement. You are apparently okay with poor folks having very limited access to health care services and I am not. I don't expect to change your mind about that; it is a values thing that reflect differences in what we personally believe to be good vs bad, right vs. wrong, etc.

So you have no alternative for the 8 million Americans who would lose their health coverage if Obamacare is overturned?

Only 1.2 million of those 8million didn't already have coverage before the ACA. Don't you think there should have been a way to insure those 1.2 million without forcing the other 6.8 million to buy a new plan? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/07/harry-reids-claim-that-under-obamacare-9-million-people-have-health-care-that-didnt-have-it-before/

I too would rather that we were not mandating that people purchase health insurance. I would prefer that the government had protected us from the industry by expanding Medicare and Medicaid to allow all citizens access based upon income.

I actually agree with this, with the addition of a sliding scale premium based on income. But, that's not what happened.

Only 1.2 million of those 8million didn't already have coverage before the ACA. Don't you think there should have been a way to insure those 1.2 million without forcing the other 6.8 million to buy a new plan? Harry Reid's claim that under Obamacare 9 million people ‘have health care that didn't have it before'

Here is a link to The Kaiser Foundation which might help you to explore issues surrounding the uninsured American populace. Uninsured | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

If you read their report you will discover that they reference the more than 40 million Americans who do not have health insurance. The report identifies nearly 18% of the population who have very limited access to health care because of health insurance "issues".

There is a better way to get those people access to health care, that would be a single payer system, or Medicare for all. Democrats and Progressives have been trying to pass that fix for some time but Conservatives are not interested.

At least you admitted that the Federal Government has an obligation to the people rather than to the profit of industry.

I was never in disagreement with this.

I too would rather that we were not mandating that people purchase health insurance. I would prefer that the government had protected us from the industry by expanding Medicare and Medicaid to allow all citizens access based upon income. I don't expect you to agree with that, and I am really quite okay with that disagreement. You are apparently okay with poor folks having very limited access to health care services and I am not.

The latter sentence is not a matter for the United States government to address referring back to the 10th Amendment. Yep, I hate it that they can't get to the doctor, but I don't feel it's our place to pay an additional tax to get them there or control the doctor's practice and revenues to the point that he quits altogether.

I don't expect to change your mind about that; it is a values thing that reflect differences in what we personally believe to be good vs bad, right vs. wrong, etc.

You can't allow your emotions to patchwork a porous solution together, but that's what happened due to our present democratic stance.

I would rather abort the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, return to the state level, squeeze out the abuse from our present social welfare/insurance programs ranging from unemployment to Medicaid, and with the sudden, newfound funds sit back, study the problem, and act reasonably. Rather, the sitting administration wants to do nothing but throw more and more money at a problem with no idea how to correct it, and that's money we, as Americans, don't have.

My wife is a state auditor. She frequently has to pay site visits to state agencies such as our unemployment division (those that give out unemployment checks) and routinely finds marijuana butts on the parking lots, and has even walked up on groups of "out of work" persons smoking it in the parking lot while waiting their turn to pick up their weekly check. Rather than pay people to sit at home and smoke pot, let's urine drug screen them and if it shows positive then bye bye benefits. That's a simple step that isn't costly but would reap rewards, yet it doesn't tug at the emotional heartstrings of mobocratic America as the dying cancer patient who couldn't qualify for insurance thus couldn't afford treatment. I agree. It's a sad picture. Just as many, if not all states, elicit federal funds to aide in their respective state's unemployment programs why couldn't the federal government immediately stamp out a directive requiring drug tests to qualify for short-term unemployment benefits? In a similar manner, all states enforce a maximum BAC of 0.08 mg/dL among adult noncommercial drivers because that's an included provision of eligibility to receive federal highway funds. Some states may have taken it upon themselves to lower this number further.