Prediction for Tomorrow.

[jagman]

My prediction is as follows. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will find the Affordable Healthcare Act Unconstitutional, Specifically the mandate. (5-4)

[Lost Soul]

Let us pray.

[Mulder]

I'll look on-line all day tomorrow & see what happens.

[modwiz]

Posted by jagman (here)
My prediction is as follows. Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will find the Affordable Healthcare Act Unconstitutional, Specifically the mandate. (5-4)

I want you to be right, Jagman. I pray that is will be so. Unfortunately, the same USSC that passed Citizens United, demonstrating a business over people attitude, would be showing a schizophrenic nature by making your prediction true. We can always hope they do it out of spite to stick it to Obama. I do not care what their motivation is, as long as they strike it down.

[foreverfan]

But that would put an end to Obamamaina.

[sdv]

I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

[scarletfire]

I think it will be struck down too, although I have no idea why...like modwiz pointed out the USSC passed citizens united and members are far from progressive. One would think that these folks, beholden to corporate insurance types would love the idea of every American FORCED to be their customer.

[GCS1103]

Posted by sdv (here)
I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

Reading further into the Health Care Act you will also find that elderly people who have a terminal illness will be subject to bureaucratic panels (infamously, but correctly called, death panels) that will determine if they are entitled to have their treatment covered. It's based on how much money would be spent by the insurance company vs. the anticipated length of time this person can be expected to live with this illness. It's an insidious piece of legislation, but our legislators knew that. That's why they exempted themselves from this Act. It doesn't apply to them.

[Carmody]

Posted by sdv (here)
I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

The 'universal' health care of other countries (Not-usa) is tied to government coffers/taxation..... and has nothing to do with private insurance companies.

There may be feeders and greeders in the given universal health care systems of other countries out side of the USA..but..they were not formed from the ground up to be a feeding trough for insurance companies and private interests.

That is the difference. It is fundamental and at the formation and 'in-situ' actions and directions of the given universal systems. Due to this, most universal health care systems still have some basic level of sound functionality.

What the USA systems seems to be proposing is that the incredible level of animalistic feeding upon the public be stepped up a notch to the point that servitude to private interests be made a legal (and punishable if not adhered to) mandate, in one more additional direction, in a very public and non-hidden way..

[we-R-one]

Posted by Carmody (here)

Posted by sdv (here)
I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

The 'universal' health care of other countries (Not-usa) is tied to government coffers/taxation..... and has nothing to do with private insurance companies.

There may be feeders and greeders in the given universal health care systems of other countries out side of the USA..but..they were not formed from the ground up to be a feeding trough for insurance companies and private interests.

That is the difference. It is fundamental and at the formation and 'in-situ' actions and directions of the given universal systems. Due to this, most universal health care systems still have some basic level of sound functionality.

What the USA systems seems to be proposing is that the incredible level of animalistic feeding upon the public be stepped up a notch to the point that servitude to private interests be made a legal (and punishable if not adhered to) mandate, in one more additional direction, in a very public and non-hidden way..

Very true, and I'll add to this, it's not about health care it's about controlling the masses.

[Kimberley]

************

FYI in Massachusetts Heath insurance is already mandatory ... thanks, not, to Mitt Romney...

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,[1][2], enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[3] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also partially subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. These subsidies and FPL-related calculations affect very few of the over 6,000,000 people (see Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy quarterly Key Indicators report), over 90% of whom had healthcare insurance prior to the enactment of the law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

[conk]

Over-turned or not, it does not matter. The result will still be the same, a medical paradigm that is designed to kill, not heal. Universal care is just a means to drag more and more customers into the furnace.

[kcbc2010]

I agree that Western medicine doesn't have all the answers. However, a lot of doctors have come out and said that they will close up shop if the USSC holds up the mandate.

I don't think we can judge every doctor in the US medical establishment. We don't know their motives or their hearts. The "why" in why they joined the profession in the first place. Money isn't inherently bad. Money is a tool that people (who are inherently flawed and have free will) use for good or evil. (Yes, I like Ayn Rand.....how could you tell?) Yes, a lot of docs have sold out to Big Pharma, but a lot of docs really just want to practice medicine and we need to remember that docs are people who make individual choices (just like the rest of us).

Ideally, I don't have a problem with universal care because isn't that what we talk about here - everyone having their health and well-being taken care of w/o money being of major importance.

However, the pragmatist in me realizes that until TPTB are defeated, the system we have is the system we've got. The system in the US is broke, but the way our "leaders" decided to go about fixing it was just a huge over-reach. Remember this was passed with no Republican votes whatsoever. If we are going to make major changes in the way we do health care, then you'd think that both parties would have been convinced and gotten more people on board with it. As it is, Dems aren't running on their vote for this health care package - especially, if they are Blue Dogs from swing/conservative districts. However, that's not really the point of the conversation - Sorry. I just really hate ObamaCare and hope that the judges do the right thing and get rid of the mandate.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by sdv (here)
I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

If you want a bigger, clearer picture (IMO) check out Mad As Hell Doctors website. The bill was written by pharmaceutical company and health insurance company lobbyists. It protects the interests of the (malevolent) industries, not citizens and not health. Besides, (mostly due to the pharmaceutical companies' chemical weapons of mass health destruction), the US has absolutely awful health care, compared to much of the rest of the world. So, even eliminating health insurance companies and allowing US citizens full access to current "state-of-the-art" health care in a 'single payer' system (which is what Mad As Hell Doctors and other single payer proponents want), citizens overall health from infant mortality to longevity would probably become even worse.

I contend that alternative therapies (with a huge emphasis on herbs for now, and sound/energy healing as emerging technology), and extreme regulation of pharmaceutical drugs, and official denouncement and vilification of GMO, over-refined foods, factory/'ranching' tortured animal products, and the fast-'food' industry's unhealth-food, and embracing organic foods is the pathway to health - not access to the current medical system as practiced in the US.

Dennis
p.s. If I ever have a gravestone, it would be funny to put one of my run-on sentences on it, filling the face of the stone, and then continuing around the side of the stone and onto the back. ;~)

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by conk (here)
Over-turned or not, it does not matter. The result will still be the same, a medical paradigm that is designed to kill, not heal. Universal care is just a means to drag more and more customers into the furnace.

Conk, I need to take 'succinct' lessons from you!

Dennis

[WyoSeeker]

Posted by GCS1103 (here)
Reading further into the Health Care Act you will also find that elderly people who have a terminal illness will be subject to bureaucratic panels (infamously, but correctly called, death panels) that will determine if they are entitled to have their treatment covered. It's based on how much money would be spent by the insurance company vs. the anticipated length of time this person can be expected to live with this illness. It's an insidious piece of legislation, but our legislators knew that. That's why they exempted themselves from this Act. It doesn't apply to them.

Your point is very true and it is an insidious piece of legislation, but this is happening now by the insurance companies themselves. If you've ever been ill in the US then you've already experienced it.

So the only question is do you want your physical health and well being reduced to a profit equation by the US government or the corporate bodies that own it?

[pilotsimone]

We had to drop our health insurance when we were paying more than $10,000/year and getting nothing for it but high deductible junk insurance. They wouldn't cover any preexisting conditions (allergies/Gerd) so all of the meds/doctor visits for those were out of pocket too.

There are a LOT of people living without insurance or who are very under-insured. You think they care about supposed bureaucratic death panels? No. They've already been up against the health insurance company death panels for years...

I finding it irritating the flippant way most people discuss this healthcare crisis...tending to focus solely on striking down Obamacare (because of the mandate)...not focusing any energy on those who are continually screwed by private health insurance.

The lack of compassion is typical...and I'm assuming that's because most who do the complaining enjoy the luxury of having health insurance...or it's affordable/available if they choose.

IMO, striking down Obamacare will have a positive effect on Obama's campaign. A whole lot of people were counting on it and now it's going to be yanked away...leaving the healthcare crisis completely unaddressed...again. And more and more people are losing their jobs (and insurance) every day. It makes Obama look caring and the opposition look out of touch and without compassion. I see this playing to his benefit in November...just like the birther issue probably will.

On the birther issue...it doesn't matter where he was born because the people who LIKE him don't really care where he is from. It's a total non-issue. All this talk of photoshopped birth certificates...if no one can prove the falsification...it looks like a bunch of sour grapes induced conspiracy nutjobs. Again...all to his benefit in November.

It will be interesting to watch how all this plays out.

[sdv]

Thank you so much to the Americans who have added to my education on this issue. I wish you well in this fight, and in finding and fixing the root causes of the problem.

To me, the fundamental issue seems to be that healthcare is placed in the private sector and is thus based on profit, plus ...

I live in a country that has a two-tier system - public health (provided free to those who are unemployed and/or are below the poverty line) and private health (provided to those who are rich enough to afford it and to those who have medical insurance, called medical aid here, the contributions for which usually are included in a salary package).

Here are the problems: The public health system (funded by tax) is, mostly, appalling (really, just because you are poor and unemployed does not mean you must be treated like an animal). In the private health sector, providers usually charge over and beyond the rates set by the medical aid providers, so the individual has to pay for the difference. The government is now trying to address the first problem and is proposing a public health system that is funded through VAT and some sort of public-private health collaboration (simplistically, instead of duplicating, the two sectors can make use of each others' best facilities ... I made use of this myself in the past when I was covered by medical aid, what Americans call health insurance, but went to a public health facility for treatment as they offered the best in the field).

The working people I have spoken to (who fund the public health system through the taxes they pay) are all in support of this proposed new system as it would be a more fair way of paying for it (through VAT rather than PAYE tax) but are adamant that the public health system must improve the quality of what it provides (i.e. we are sick of paying for really bad health provision to the poor so we want better).

Some basic principles to understand: Health care is regarded as a basic human right in this country (so the outrage is not that more than 25% of society have to be carried by the rest but that what is provided to that more than 25% who have to be carried is so darned bad - stop wasting our money!). Alternative health care is recognised, so medical aid (health insurance) must pay if you, e.g,. choose to treat cancer with acupuncture. It's not a free for all, in that 'alternative', called traditional or allied health provision, medical treatments gain legally enforced recognition by establishing a professional body alongside with recognised educational qualifications. Gosh, who is recognised by law? Chiropractors, homeopaths, traditional healers... (I remember being treated by a kinesiologist and being covered) and I am sure that acupuncture is also recognised by law.

Would be interesting to see the reaction ... this kind of recognition of basic human rights and the acceptance that such a huge percentage of the population must be carried 'free of charge' (but remember that a public health system funded by VAT rather than PAYE would be more fair) may be fundamentally unacceptable to many. On the other hand, much of the health care policy and legislation in this country may be appealing to many (i.e. the legal recognition that we have the legal right to choose what kind of medical treatment we want).

However, the consequences of not paying to take care of those who cannot, or will not, take care of themselves may just cost us more. Do you really want to have to trip over diseased beggars every day, all the time? And yes of course there has to be a balance! At present in this country there are 15 million on social grants (probably 25% of the population). But the overriding thinking seems to be that we accept that there will always be those who just take and never give (the parasites, many of whom are just not capable of being anything else), but let's weed out the illegal parasites (i.e. for a start a LOT of illegal immigrants and a LOT of people who abuse the system - so let's cut the number down to under 20% for a start), and if we are paying, then we expect good value for our money.

Does anything I have said make sense at all? Is anything relevant to Obama's health care reform? Probably not!

[the_vast_mystery]

Posted by GCS1103 (here)

Posted by sdv (here)
I did some research on this Health Care Act because I could not understand why Americans would object to everyone having equal access to quality health care, and the whole purpose of insurance is sharing risk. So I waded through articles and I think I found the problem - the law basically says that everyone HAS to purchase health insurance (and my understanding is that health is a private enterprise in America) and anyone who does not is penalised. You must be right Jagman - this cannot be constitutionally acceptable.

Reading further into the Health Care Act you will also find that elderly people who have a terminal illness will be subject to bureaucratic panels (infamously, but correctly called, death panels) that will determine if they are entitled to have their treatment covered. It's based on how much money would be spent by the insurance company vs. the anticipated length of time this person can be expected to live with this illness. It's an insidious piece of legislation, but our legislators knew that. That's why they exempted themselves from this Act. It doesn't apply to them.

What is often missed in this argument is that those same sorts of Bureaucracy existed before, only it was the insurance company making the decision instead of the government. It all really comes down to who you'd trust to make the decision more. A private company who has every reason to drop your coverage at its earliest convenience (which probably means they'd end up denying more coverage), or the government which has a modicum of public accountability (in that you can always vote in new legislators to alter the laws.) That's not to say that making end of life care decisions isn't important, but it's an illusion to think the ACA actually curtailed any medical choice. You never had any medical choice in this country if you weren't already rich.

You either were born rich (and could afford individual insurance) or you got insurance with your job, and put up with whatever their medical bureaucracy said you had to put up with. You simply accepted it because you were somehow put under the illusion it was you who chose your health insurance entirely because it was provided by a private company. There are always exceptions to this, but that was reality for the vast majority of Americans who could even afford coverage.

[kathymarie]

...rats....looks like we'll have to wait until Monday the 25th....delays delays.....