Scoot wrote:
The question is does Congress have power to regulate the national health care market under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Yes, easily, says Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe,
Would requiring individuals to buy insurance, or if they don't buy to pay a tax penalty, be "necessary and proper" to making this particular effort at health insurance regulation work. Clearly yes, says Tribe, who explains:
"The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic 'activity,' not 'inactivity,' like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system. They know that if they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. This conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.
.
That's a good point. Why should I be compelled to pay higher rates to subsidize those that opt out of HC insurance, or that use high costs Emegr Rooms, skip out on bills, etc....when they should pay up? Why should I also be forced to subsidize thru taxation 'socialized medicine' for special groups.....home duty mil, veterans, various governmnet ex-employees, etc. when the private sector is considered better and cheaper, and Constitutional? IF one desires government out of HC, and the Constitution says keep out....then they must want Governmnet entirely out of HC in every way.
..TM7
.
Here is the hurdle on the implementation side the way it is written now :
How Play Or Pay Will Work for the Individual
Every individual with a household income greater than 138% of the poverty level2 will be required to enroll in a healthcare plan with minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty to the IRS. Thus, if the individual plays and enrolls in a qualifying health insurance plan (presumably one offered by their employer or from an exchange), he or she won't have to pay a penalty. Assuming an employer requires their employees to pay 27% of insurance premium costs, the average primary wage earner uses between $2,000 - $4,000 per year of their income for insurance coverage. If that wage earner chooses not to play by refusing to participate in healthcare coverage, the penalty is comparatively small -- from $95 in 2014 to $695 in 2016. It's fair to be concerned that younger and healthy persons will decline to participate, and instead, pay the penalty, until such time as they believe they will actually need such health care coverage.
I guess I just don't understand the whole Opposition surrounding.
All I have read on topics regarding new health care plan on this forum regarding - is people need to take responsibility for their own. No welfare , no free ride .
As a fiscal conservative (admittedly a bit more liberal on social issues) I see it as a golden opportunity win win. Insurance Co's get more customers , Responsible people are not saddled with higher premiums because of deadbeats who use the system but don't pay and no one gets a free ride. Now there are parts of this plan I do disagree with but there are parts I also like.
I do like the fact children can stay on parents plan longer .
I do like the fact you cannot be denied for a pre-existing condition.
I do like the fact you cannot be dropped on a whim by your insurance Co. just because you contract an expensive disease like cancer for instance after paying your premiums faithfully for years.
C4,
I enjoy reading your posts , and am very open mided. Since you are staunchly opposed to the new Heathcare plan perhaps you can share your thoughts further.
What is it specifically I am missing that you vehemently dislike about the plan?
Personally I think they should not throw the whole baby out with the bathwater. Keep the good parts , work together to reach compromise on the parts that need adjusting. -JMHO
One thing both sides of the isle agree upon is as it is implemented today Healthcare in America (whether Private or Federal subsidized ie: (Medicare/Medicaid) costs will become unsustainable for most all Americans in the future.
The CBO’s projections already have reported that any absence of changes in federal law:
Total spending on health care would rise from 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025, 37 percent in 2050, and 49 percent in 2082.
Federal spending on Medicare (net of beneficiaries’ premiums) and Medicaid would rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 7 percent in 2025, 12 percent in 2050, and 19 percent in 2082.
