You hate Obama's health care penalty for the uninsured?

[Ivan Seeking]

Some supported it, maybe they still do. So? Nixon supported wage and price controls. Does that mean 'Republicans' support wage and price controls? The thesis proposed in this thread is that 'Republicans' have reversed themselves on individual health mandates at the federal level. Yeah? Who? Hatch?

Obama's plan has been called "right of Nixon". I would expect that you are too young to fully appreciate the siginficance of that statement. It is yet another example that America's right has gone right over a cliff.

Here was Nixon's proposal

President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan

February 6, 1974...

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

...The flat truth is that in February 1974, with the hounds of hell baying at him about Watergate, with a national trial by shortage under way after the Arab Oil Embargo, with the economy in extremely rocky shape, and with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Republican Richard M. Nixon submitted to Congress a national health care bill in many ways more comprehensive than what Mr. Obama achieved.

Mr. Nixon's health care plan would have covered all employed people by giving combined state and federal subsidies to employers. It would have covered the poor and the unemployed by much larger subsidies. It would have encouraged health maintenance organizations. It would have banned exclusions for pre-existing conditions and not allowed limits on spending for each insured.

I know a bit about this because I, your humble servant, as a 29-year-old speech writer, wrote the message to Congress sending up the bill.

In many ways, the bill was far more "socialist" than what Mr. Obama has proposed...

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-giving-nixon-his-due-on-health-care-reform/19414702

 

[calculusrocks]

BTW, the individual federal insurance mandate is not high on my list of objections to this new Obamacare law, per se. I'm mainly concerned that it sets a precedent for federal the government mandating anything, like mandating that I buy a Government Motors automobile. If I could find a good legal argument, I'd have much less objection, though I still not favor it.

Or government bonds, perhaps?

 

[calculusrocks]

Ivan, if by "to the right" you mean nationalizing Amtrak and central planning, then yeah? But that doesn't make very much sense. If we're going to use this left-right paradigm, we might as well start with some definitions. Otherwise it just becomes a food fight between partisans who want to paint every control freak as a member of the other team.

Right - smaller gov't
Left - bigger gov't

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, if by "to the right" you mean nationalizing Amtrak and central planning, then yeah? But that doesn't make very much sense. If we're going to use this left-right paradigm, we might as well start with some definitions. Otherwise it just becomes a food fight between partisans who want to paint every control freak as a member of the other team.

Right - smaller gov't
Left - bigger gov't

I don't think you can break down "left" and "right" that simply, but I tend to agree with the notion that the role of government in solving problems is a key element of the distinction between the two views. My point is that the "right" has not always been driven entirely by ideology. Amtrak is another example of this. One cannot run a nation while wearing ideological blinders.

If your point is that Nixon was a liberal, good luck in defending that one!

 

[edpell]

right - higher taxes
left - higher taxes

right - foreign wars for resources
left - foreign wars for resources

right - amnesty for 30 million illegal immigrants
left - amnesty for 30 million illegal immigrants

right - annual federal debt >1 trillion dollars
left - annual federal debt >1 trillion dollars

I fail to see the difference.

 

[mheslep]

Nixon was a creature of the big government 60s and 70s, instituted wage and price controls, vastly increased the power of government and its regulation in numerous ways (e.g. EPA). He had almost nothing in common with what's considered a Reagan conservative of today.

 

[calculusrocks]

If your point is that Nixon was a liberal, good luck in defending that one!

Nixon wasn't a liberal. He was a socialist. He's not the first socialist to reside in the Republican party, and he won't be the last. This whole notion that is repeated ad nausium that if X is a republican, and X supports socialist proposition Q, then all republicans are therefore hypocrites is really quite bizarre, especially considering Obama was the one saying that it was "guilt by association" when his ties to the radical terrorist Bill Ayers and the Woods foundation were revealed.

 

[BoomBoom]

Nixon was a creature of the big government 60s and 70s, instituted wage and price controls, vastly increased the power of government and its regulation in numerous ways (e.g. EPA). He had almost nothing in common with what's considered a Reagan conservative of today.

Reagan, who re-wrote the book on extravagant deficit spending...and Bush followed suit perfectly. That must be 'Reagan conservatism'...as long as the spending is on the military, it doesn't count?

 

[mheslep]

Nixon wasn't a liberal. He was a socialist.

He had some awful socialist policies.

 

[turbo]

He had some awful socialist policies.

Including that nasty Head-Start program. What a Commie! Johnson started it, and Nixon expanded it. What a traitor.

When I was a kid in grade school in the 50s, we were heavily tracked because the federal government had figured out that we would lose our technological edge to the Soviets if we continued to allow children to be under-educated, and not allowed to track into harder science courses. My parents must have struggled awfully, financially, but they managed to buy me a Sears Newtonian one year, and an Edmund microscope the year after. I had been scoring off the charts in sciences and math and my teachers gave me LOTS of extra work, and must have urged them to get me some more "tools" at home.

 

[mheslep]

Reagan, who re-wrote the book on extravagant deficit spending...and Bush followed suit perfectly.

Wrote the book? What do you call what's going on now?

1. Spending is also a function of the Congress, so include, say, Tip O'neil in the 1980s calculus.
2. Entitlements are the real problem, not military spending which can be and was dramatically reduced after the cold war. Reagan didn't sign any new entitlements.
3. The deficits in the Reagan era peaked in '86 at 5% of GDP; today's deficit http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s" that figure.

 

[calculusrocks]

The food fighters just don't get it. The CBO, the government's own self-serving measurements, projects that it's going to take 90% of GDP to service the debt by 2020. The goal now is to convince as many stupid countries as possible to invest in our economy to serve our addiction to spending.

ADD: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

 

[calculusrocks]

1) Deficits != Spending
2) LOL @ comparing nonsense programs like "Cash for Clunkers" to spending on military for the Cold War.

 

[BoomBoom]

1) Deficits != Spending
2) LOL @ comparing nonsense programs like "Cash for Clunkers" to spending on military for the Cold War.

Umm, not quite sure if this comment was directed towards me or not? (I'll respond anyway)

Personally, I would much rather my tax dollars go towards providing all with health coverage, than fund a useless war for no other reason than, "we're afraid of them", or building bombs to make others afraid of us...etc.
It's just a matter of allocation of 'values'. So if you are really sincere in your 'disgust' of deficit spending, you should be equally against it when it comes to military spending by republican presidents. But you do not seem to be, which makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.

 

[edward]

Some supported it, maybe they still do. So? Nixon supported wage and price controls. Does that mean 'Republicans' support wage and price controls? The thesis proposed in this thread is that 'Republicans' have reversed themselves on individual health mandates at the federal level. Yeah? Who? Hatch?

You can add Romney to that list, also Scottt Brown.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011431814_healthmandate25.html?prmid=obnetwork

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/13/r...-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-health-care-plan/

 

[calculusrocks]

Umm, not quite sure if this comment was directed towards me or not? (I'll respond anyway)

Personally, I would much rather my tax dollars go towards providing all with health coverage, than fund a useless war for no other reason than, "we're afraid of them", or building bombs to make others afraid of us...etc.
It's just a matter of allocation of 'values'. So if you are really sincere in your 'disgust' of deficit spending, you should be equally against it when it comes to military spending by republican presidents. But you do not seem to be, which makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.

First, the tax dollars don't go directly to health coverage. Money changes hands between many bureaucrats in between. If you wanted a more direct approach, try private charity.

Second, I don't like war, and I don't think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. But, the Cold War, you must admit that was a good result. The problem is that you're confusing "war" and "military spending". We spent money on the military to avoid war. If you don't like war, then why would you oppose a course of action that avoided a real war? Because it costs too much money?

Third, Reagan ran deficits. BUT, he ran deficits on a budget that actually made sense! We have to look how much we actually spend in total, not just whether or not we're over budget.

Forth, I think Reagan had a great idea with a missile defense system. That's something the gov't should do, defend us from our enemies. Instead we have tons of military bases all over the globe, and I don't think that's helpful. I think we need to cut-out a more modest foreign policy.

Fifth, how did we get into a war debate anyway? I thought you wanted to discuss health care?

 

[mheslep]

You can add Romney to that list, also Scottt Brown.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011431814_healthmandate25.html?prmid=obnetwork

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/13/r...-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-health-care-plan/

No, no, no. They supported STATE mandates. I don't have any a priori problem with state mandates either, as the US constitution is not material.

 

[mheslep]

It's just a matter of allocation of 'values'. So if you are really sincere in your 'disgust' of deficit spending, you should be equally against it when it comes to military spending by republican presidents. But you do not seem to be, which makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.

I pointed out above that are no comparisons for the current deficit spending under any President/Congress unless one goes back to WWII. Second, given the position of the current administration on Afghanistan, I think it is unfair to point to only Republican presidents for deficit military spending.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The topic of this thread is the mandate for health insurance for all who are not eligible for medicare or medicaid. This is clearly not a redistribution of wealth as it penalizes those who, in the event of a serious injury or illness, would require medical care that they cannot afford. Please keep all other health care debates in the appropriate thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387789

Has anyone indicated that they would accept the terms suggested in the op?

 

[calculusrocks]

The topic of this thread is the mandate for health insurance for all who are not eligible for medicare or medicaid. This is clearly not a redistribution of wealth as it penalizes those who, in the event of a serious injury or illness, would require medical care that they cannot afford. Please keep all other health care debates in the appropriate thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387789

Has anyone indicated that they would accept the terms suggested in the op?

Sen. Max Caucus and Sen. Howard Dean both say that it is about Redistribution of Wealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo&feature


Rep. Dingell says it's going to take a while before the law controls the people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI

 

[Al68]

Okay, fine. So what is your answer to my question? Are you willing to sign a waiver or accept the terms that allow medical workers to refuse treatment based on credit ratings or credit card limits?

What possible reason would he need to sign a waiver releasing someone else from an obligation he never suggested they had to begin with?

There is an implicit contract between you and the government in which you demand that emergency and extended medical treatment be made available if you are sick or seriously injured.

I've made no such demand or agreement (contract).

The words "implied contract" contradict each other. A contract is an agreement between people by definition, which logically precludes the use of the word to describe an involuntary obligation.

How about this: Nobody needs to sign such a waiver because we all have implied waivers.

 

[edpell]

I have medical insurance even before this all started. So my credit rating is irrelevant and I have no reason to sign any waivers.

Would I let others die in the gutter? No and yes. I would like a LIMITED universal health coverage at say 1% of GDP and then after that you are on your own or on the charity of others and when those both run out you die.

 

[Zefram]

I would like a LIMITED universal health coverage at say 1% of GDP and then after that you are on your own or on the charity of others and when those both run out you die.

Does that 1% include care for the elderly and poor (the niches currently carved out for Medicare and Medicaid) or is it aimed at everyone outside of those programs?

 

[edpell]

I am often a Libertarian so that would be 1% GDP for all federal government provided health care to all Americans and visitors. Clearly many things now paid for by the federal government would no longer be covered by the federal government. I favor a greatly reduced federal government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What possible reason would he need to sign a waiver releasing someone else from an obligation he never suggested they had to begin with?I've made no such demand or agreement (contract).

The words "implied contract" contradict each other. A contract is an agreement between people by definition, which logically precludes the use of the word to describe an involuntary obligation.

How about this: Nobody needs to sign such a waiver because we all have implied waivers.

Okay, so you would not agree to sign a waiver but you expect to be treated even if you can't afford it and have no insurance; or at the least, you believe that other people should have this right, for free? If not, then do you believe that anyone who can't pay for medical treatment on the spot, and who has no insurance, should be refused treatment and sent home, or left on the highway to die [as in the example used earlier]?

There are only two choices here: Either you or others get something for nothing, or you don't. Which is it?

How about it we call it a waiver of liability? That is easily justified. One can be excluded from the insurance mandate if they sign a waiver of liability in the event that medical treatment is ever refused due to a lack of insurance or the means to pay.

Also, I take it that you don't recognize that Congress has the right to make laws; nor that we have a representitive democracy? If you don't recognize the mandate that emergency treatment cannot be refused, then you must not recognize the power of Congress as defined under the US Constitution, or that this was done in your name as well as mine.

If you don't believe in our system of government, then your objections are outside of the bounds of this discussion. We are discussing the limits of power of the government as it stands now - according to Constitutional law.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We are discussing the limits of power of the government as it stands now - according to Constitutional law.

Passage of a Bill of Attainder is prohibited by the constitution. Can you demonstrate how this is not a Bill of Attainder?

 

[calculusrocks]

Ivan, what I'm saying is that the government should abide by its own laws. If the government's own laws mandate that they treat me every time I get small fever, then I'll seek treatment for the small fever (provided the line is not too long, then I'll just tough it out).

No where in the Constitution does it grant authority to Congress to do this. Rights in this country are retained by the People, not the State. We the people tell government what it can do, not vice-versa. The Constitution is the law in the land, and this bill might as well be a defacto 28th Amendment it is so patently unconstitutional.

Why should I sign waivers denying myself treatment simply because I do not appreciate your malicious interpretation of the law?

 

[calculusrocks]

I am often a Libertarian so that would be 1% GDP for all federal government provided health care to all Americans and visitors. Clearly many things now paid for by the federal government would no longer be covered by the federal government. I favor a greatly reduced federal government.

That I'd support, and I'd hope the citizenry would appreciate such a system as to not to abuse it.

 

[Al68]

Okay, so you would not agree to sign a waiver but you expect to be treated even if you can't afford it and have no insurance; or at the least, you believe that other people should have this right, for free?

No and no.

If not, then do you believe that anyone who can't pay for medical treatment on the spot, and who has no insurance, should be refused treatment and sent home, or left on the highway to die [as in the example used earlier]?

Nope.

There are only two choices here: Either you or others get something for nothing, or you don't. Which is it?

Those are obviously not the only choices, and I won't bother elaborating further, since you already know this.

How about it we call it a waiver of liability?

Since I am not a party to any contract containing any such liability, that makes no sense. If I were, I would need a reason to sign the waiver, such as compensation for waiving my entitlements in such a contract.

That is easily justified. One can be excluded from the insurance mandate if they sign a waiver of liability in the event that medical treatment is ever refused due to a lack of insurance or the means to pay.

Again, since I'm not a party to any such contract, no need for a waiver. How about having anyone interested in being part of this system sign a contract, and leave the rest of us alone. The idea that people who don't want to participate should be the ones signing anything is absurd.

Also, I take it that you don't recognize that Congress has the right to make laws;

Obviously false. Congress does have limited delegated power to make laws.

If you don't recognize the mandate that emergency treatment cannot be refused, then you must not recognize the power of Congress as defined under the US Constitution, or that this was done in your name as well as mine.

The current US Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude.

If you don't believe in our system of government, then your objections are outside of the bounds of this discussion. We are discussing the limits of power of the government as it stands now - according to Constitutional law.

My objections are based on the US Constitution, as should be obvious. As StatutoryApe pointed out, Bills of Attainer are prohibited, as is involuntary servitude. Not to mention the ninth and tenth amendments. This law clearly violates the constitution many times over.

The only question is, are you knowingly an enemy of the US Constitution, or do you simply not know what it says like most Americans?

 

[mheslep]

No where in the Constitution does it grant authority to Congress to do this. Rights in this country are retained by the People, not the State.

It is not at all clear that holds up. Some would say the Supreme Court wiped out the 10th amendment in the new deal decisions National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 1937, and US v Darby Lumber Co 1941:
(I'm am not one of the some.)

[...]in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), the Court said the 10th Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.

http://www.answers.com/topic/national-labor-relations-board-v-jones-laughlin-steel-corporation
http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause
For a real case of tossing out 100 years of precedent, those cases dam sure qualified.

 

[calculusrocks]

Well, I'm not getting my hopes up on the Supreme Court.

 

[Al68]

Some would say the Supreme Court wiped out the 10th amendment in the new deal decisions National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation 1937, and US v Darby Lumber Co 1941:
(I'm am not one of the some.)

Yeah, that was the beginnings of a corrupt politicized Supreme Court. But the fact still remains that nothing the courts do ever actually change what the constitution says.

There are two ways to legitimately amend the constitution, and that isn't one of them.

 

[Kerrie]

Stepping back from emergency services, I went about 3 years without health insurance when I was in my 20s, then had individual insurance (I was self-employed) for another 5. In that time, I went to the dentist once, had my wisdom teeth out and had a hernia operation. Both surgeries were payed for mostly out of pocket because I had a high deductable, so while I paid $8000 or so for insurance over that time, I still payed about $6000 out of pocket for the services I got. I'm glad I went without insurance for a few years, but I would have been better off going without insurance another few years. Regardless, as a person living in a supposedly free society, I should have the right to make such choices for myself.

Russ, you were one of the lucky ones who had the disposable income to pay for your medical bills-whether it came in the form of premiums or a direct bill. Not only did you have the disposable income to pay for it, but you also chose to pay it. Many people can't or simply won't pay for medical costs incurred, therefore you (and everyone else with the ability and choice to fork out their hard earned cash) end up paying more than you should.

Just 3 years ago I was denied individual coverage for a minor and common condition that many doctors told me was nothing to worry about. The denial letter was signed by a nurse-not a doctor. I am personally glad the government is stepping into stop insurance companies from denying coverage. Also in the letter was an offer to apply for the state's high risk medical insurance pool, and of course, that insurance company was the carrier for the high risk pool and more expensive. So in these instances, insurance companies have too much power over who they accept and don't accept, and this is where big brother government can help the people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Kerrie! Why don't you post in GD and tell us what you've been doing.

 

[Kerrie]

I sure will Ivan.

And I am in 100% agreement with our government stepping in for the people who are slipping off the cliff of health insurance coverage. Those who have coverage today may not have it tomorrow because of rising costs.

The law mandates that we have liability coverage for driving and in general, we just pay it and carry on. As long as we avoid tickets and accidents, we pay the lowest rate possible and have a choice of our carrier. Our rates stay competitive because the law requires everyone who chooses to drive to have liability insurance (and of course full coverage if financing the car).

Could it be that the government is stimulating a new market for health insurance policies that will-over time of course-drive down outrageous costs and give this market a healthy competitive drive? Currently, costs are so vague that Americans have no idea how much they are overpaying; would an awareness of these costs by Americans help the competition so that everyone can have access to our fantastic health care?

I don't know if there has been any mention in this reform about the health habits of Americans (obesity as an example), but I would welcome any sort of incentive plan that kept my rates down for making healthy choices.