Join Early Retirement Today
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-01-2011, 11:19 AM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
nun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,844
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post

If nothing else, though they'd have to find the votes for it, they'd have to chuck the "individual mandate" as passed and instead seek universal single-payer funded through tax revenues rather than making individuals purchase a private product. Medicare is a precedent for this passing Constitutional muster.
Philosophically I'm against the individual mandate as I think health insurance should be universal and funded through taxation. But I support the federal law as a compromise to get the most people insured under the prevailing system. The constitutionality of the law won't be decided for a while, there are obviously competing interpretations about the application of the commerce clause. Right now the constitutionality is undecided, we can't agree, lower court judges can't agree and I imagine the Supreme Court will be split too.

As a socialist libetarian I'm very weary of Government interference, but I generally default to accepting taxation for social policies, but never accept Government interference in free speech issues. JC had it right when he said "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's"

Once again I'm glad of living in MA, and for the progressive policies of Mitt

nun is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-01-2011, 11:32 AM   #42
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
This is why I can never have anything nice.

M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 01:53 PM   #43
samclem's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,912
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
IMO, that's the beauty of federalism. We have 50 states in various regions with different cultural and economic values.
I agree with all you wrote, but we do have to face two problems with individual state solutions:
-- The small sizes of many states will lead to serious inefficiencies compared to a single US-wide approach.
-- The adverse selection/race-to-the-bottom problem. If MA gets out in front and institutes "free" medical care and bread-and-circuses for all residents, lots of folks will move there who need expensive medical care. This happens to some degree with state aid to the poor, but it's not a big problem because poor people often don't have the resources to pull up stakes and move to the high-benefit states. A person who needs a kidney transplant, cancer treatment, etc would have a very big motivation to move to where the free care was. I suppose a residency duration requirement (as we do for state universities) or some type of medical underwriting might be put into place, but that adds complexity.

What I like BEST about the state-run solution is that it's entirely within the traditional scope of the US constitution. And, if the states want to get together to form larger, more efficient pools with common laws and mutual recognition of eligibility for care, that's just fine--everyone benefits. If it works, residents of states that hadn't signed on would push their states to join the group. Like the the Powerball consortium!

Originally Posted by donheff
They ought to be studying what may have gone wrong here. Both on the constitutionality of the mandate and on whether they should have included a sever-ability clause. On groundbreaking social programs affecting the entire country it is a disaster to get the underlying constitutionality wrong. Keep in mind, this reversal does not invalidate the concept of universal health care, just the specific approach taken. Congress should have foreseen the problems and addressed them.
Yes. The constitutionality issue hasn't been settled yet, but is certainly not the laughing matter implied by the Speaker. The fact that this wasn't even seriously considered before the law was finalized and voted on is now a problem for everyone.
This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue--both sides seem content, in their turn, to pass legislation and let the Supreme Court decide if it is constitutional. These legislators have sworn to uphold the Constitution, that should mean, on the most fundamental level, not violating it. The courts should be the "second check", not the only one.
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2011, 05:59 PM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
obgyn65's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: midwestern city
Posts: 4,061
+1. Exactly. I won't even post anything else than this message under this thread. Good night

Originally Posted by travelover View Post
My advice: Put this thread on ignore and save your blood pressure.
Very conservative with investments. Not ER'd yet, 48 years old. Please do not take anything I write or imply as legal, financial or medical advice directed to you. Contact your own financial advisor, healthcare provider, or attorney for financial, medical and legal advice.
obgyn65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 12:23 AM   #45
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
This is why I can never have anything nice.
SarahW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2011, 10:11 AM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ls99's Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,815
The real reason the Judge tossed obamacare, you see he was having breakfest and then this doc stepped up, all the judge heard was this snap of surgical glove:


There must be moderation in everything, including moderation.
ls99 is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge in VA strikes down federal health care law Midpack FIRE Related Public Policy 113 02-10-2011 06:33 PM
Long-Term Care - Part of Health Care Reform Bill chinaco Health and Early Retirement 3 07-19-2009 02:53 PM
Health Care Reform in ICU haha Health and Early Retirement 1 07-09-2009 11:23 AM
Health Care Reform Rich_by_the_Bay Health and Early Retirement 121 06-22-2009 02:57 PM
Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 wabmester Health and Early Retirement 2 01-03-2007 02:04 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.