Devil's Advocate: What is wrong with the ACA?

[ChunkyMonkey]

They aren't exempt. Originally, they didn't have to join the healthcare exchange, but an amendment to the bill makes it so that they are now part of it, just like everyone else.



They say that they do, as it falls under the insterstate commerce clause. You can argue that it also falls under the government's requirement to provide for the national welfare.



Covered above




They are not interjecting in the doctor/patient relationship. They are extending it to everyone in the country



Health insurance is not health care. It's simply the means to pay for it.



This discussion is specifically about the individual mandate.



Healthcare wasn't exactly cheap for people to buy before this happened.



Can you show where they are wrong?



How does it kill the free market? People can still choose which insurer they want to go with.



Doctor salaries are not capped. Insurance company profits are capped, in that they have to spend a marked percentage of their income on health care.



At which point they can drop off and pay the much lower fine and be covered under the general fund.



There are no death panels. This isn't Logan's Run.



So just because it isn't an enumerated right means that people shouldn't get it at all, and just die?




Individual mandate discussion here.



I'm certainly not arguing over how it was passed. But regarding the Supreme Court, it's very likely that Roberts read the bill (unlike most Americans) and saw what can come of it, and changed his mind.

75% subsidize so they can buy private insurance outside the exchange IS exemption!!

[TFOGGER]

More to the point: Name ANYTHING that the Federal government does that could not be done better, faster, and more efficiently by private enterprise. Think about the 39000 pages of federal tax code, the Post Office, DOE, EPA, USDA, FDA, and the IRS, and tell me you want the same level of bureaucratic incompetence involved in administering health insurance in this country. The ACA only looks at the consumer side when it caps costs, but does not address tort reform for frivolous lawsuits which account for 12% of every healthcare dollar. As usual, the Democrats rammed through poorly thought out feel good provisions without any consideration as to how to pay for it or make it sustainable in the long term.

[BPTactical]

Well this certainly convinces me of your point. Excellent debate technique.

My point was made in post #7 of this thread. It covered a small handful of the objectionable features of this abomination of legislation.
Anything after that is pure,good natured,sarcastic antagonization.

[asmo]

One of the many things that I find despicable about the ACA is the tax on 'Cadillac' health plans. I work really hard to have a good job and incredible benefits - now I have to pay an INSANE amount of tax (12k per year!!) because I have a nice PPO with a very low deductible. However, if I leave my PPO and go with the government plan then everything is 'free' and I don't have to pay the tax. Having the government effectively force me into buying something from a specific entity or entities is blatantly wrong in every sense of the word.

One of the other reasons that I don't like the ACA is the forcing of employers to provide insurance. This has the effect of keeping me from starting any new companies and I have sold off the ones I had - putting ~20 people out of work. I am (was) only one employer - I can only imagine the chilling effect this is having on small businesses around the country.

As for whether the unions are allowed an exemption to ACA - your damn right they are. My wife does HR and benefits for a large company with both union and non-union employees. The company petitioned for a flat exemption and the self-insurance route - the gov't said the non-union employees are subject to the ACA, the union employees are exempted until 2018 (including paying a tax on the 'Cadillac' plans).

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

There are an awful lot of things falling under such a broad umbrella.
What is "General Welfare?"
200 years ago, it may have been protection from an invading army/navy.
2 generations ago, it may have been some sort of safety net for retiring old folks.
Now it is "free" Health Care.
What about the broccoli argument? It would be for the general welfare if we all ate more responsibly. Are we going to be forced into dietary plans?
It would be better for the general welfare if we all exercised more. Are we going to be forced into exercise plans? Must buy memberships at gyms?
It would be better for the general welfare if your current home and property were converted to a nice safe park for the children. Should we do that?

[mikedubs]

Fining people for not buying mandated health insurance.

"I made him an offer he couldn't refuse"
OR
"You can have any color you want, as long as its black."

Hey how bout you GFY

[jerrymrc]

Jerrymrc, can I share some of your popcorn?

Just checking in to see how it is going. BTW gang, do keep it civil. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

[Ridge]

Just checking in to see how it is going. BTW gang, do keep it civil. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

Again with the entitlements here!

[spqrzilla]

There is a ton of socialism in this country that we all benefit from. Fire departments, police services, schools, roads.

OK, so now we know you don't know what socialism is.

[spqrzilla]

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

No, that's not what it says.