SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling

[Shadowrider]

The healthcare systems prior to Obama care was an unfunded disaster that was headed for collapse. President Obama's healthcare plan has not changed the trajectory.

The government is the largest single payor of healthcare costs and they have run out of money. We do not have the resources or dollars to support our current healthcare system now or after Obamacare takes effect in 2014. That is a fact.

How do we pay for something we need when the government doesn't have the money? You can cut costs but that doesn't make up the difference. There is only one answer left. When you need money you go to people with jobs - "because they have money".

So for those of you who pay taxes let me ask you. Do you want to send your money to the government in the form of higher taxes to squander negligently trying to pay our healthcare costs or do you want to send it to a private health insurance company in the form of premiums and keep your $ in the private sector? These are our only two choices. The bill must be paid. Buy health insurance when you're healthy or pay higher taxes.

I want my money circulating in the private sector, please. Not circulating in the DC cesspool where we'll get $0.10 of value for every dollar sent.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Simple. Keep the .gov out of it completely and let the free market crash and/or reboot itself. The pain will be much shorter lived that way. The key word being completely. That means no mandates of any kind on the insurance companies from the .gov. The insurance companies' customers (us) will provide all the mandates they need as a requirement of them getting our business. Now if the .gov wants to join as a customer that's fine, it would still be up to the provider to decide if they can accept the terms of the .gov's business. Free market competition can fix it's ills, but not overnight.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Sometimes I wonder why I just dont try to get banned again.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

You make no sense!

You rely on government for everything. YOU probably could not make it without them in your life.
Teddy must be your hero, lol, that's why you don't like the founders. Without him we'd all be

You sound like a fonzanoon.

 

[Hobbes]

If I did dissent it would be because I disagree with the Law. Not the States power to invoke it. While the State of Oklahoma may pass many laws that infringe on my personal freedom it is within their powers to do so unless they conflict with the enumerated powers given to the Feds.

To make it clear. I believe that any power the Federal Government claims to possess not enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments to be illegal. The document clearly states how and under what conditions that additional powers can be given to the Feds. Where in the Constitution does it state the the Federal Government can claim new powers except by using the Amendment process? Where does it say that one branch of Government could pull new powers out of thin air to meet some new need?

Michael

Michael

With all due respect, justice Roberts decision was that congress does have the power to levy taxes.

You might not like that decision but I challenge you to disprove the authority of congress to levy new taxes.

 

[Biggsly]

Sometimes I wonder why I just dont try to get banned again.

LOL. You need to start a forum for shooters and gun guys. I will be the first to join.

 

[Billybob]

Google "Firearms public health issue"

If firearms are determined to be a "health issue" as opposed to a right will that change things?

 

[3inSlugger]

Every time I see "SCOTUS", I think "SCROTUS".

That was my troll for the day.

Thank you.

 

[jsl_pt]

Every time I see "SCOTUS", I think "SCROTUS".

That was my troll for the day.

Thank you.

That's actually funny!

 

[greenbeetle]

Simple. Keep the .gov out of it completely and let the free market crash and/or reboot itself. The pain will be much shorter lived that way. The key word being completely. That means no mandates of any kind on the insurance companies from the .gov. The insurance companies' customers (us) will provide all the mandates they need as a requirement of them getting our business. Now if the .gov wants to join as a customer that's fine, it would still be up to the provider to decide if they can accept the terms of the .gov's business. Free market competition can fix it's ills, but not overnight.

I'm not sure one can "cold turkey" stop medicare and medicaid. There are 1/2 million children in the state of Oklahoma alone who rely on medicaid for insurance. Country wide there are 48 million people who receive medicare. Turning the spigot off suddenly may make financial sense for the government's balance sheet but the cost left to be absorbed by the private sector will mean all of our insurance rates will skyrocket overnight (if the insurance sector doesn't collapse from the weight which it probably would). Also the sudden lapse in care may mean death / suffering for those with chronic or life-threatening conditions.

It's a shell game. Changing the payor, shifting money here or there doesn't change the total $ cost we owe for healthcare every year. Someone will pay at the end of the day by one means or another.

 

[71buickfreak]

This is much less about the actual health care bill than it is about the fed yet again taking away our rights and replacing their will upon us. I don't have insurance because it is too expensive. the state-run health insurance I can afford is not run very well. Insurance is NOT a requirement to get healthcare. You can pay a doc with cash you know. At least you used to, they probably won't accept cash anymore and we will all have to go get backalley prostate exams.