5 ms·

One solution (which obviously won't for everybody): live in Massachusetts. We have excellent health insurance plans available here: https://www.mahealthconnect

One solution (which obviously won't for everybody): live in Massachusetts. We have excellent health insurance plans available here: https://www.mahealthconnector.org/ https://www.mahealthconnector.org/ I'm using one now.

_delirium 14y ago
That is, oddly enough, basically the model for the current guaranteed-issue reform (scheduled to become operational in January 2014), despite the fact that the governor who passed it doesn't want to take any credit for it.
- clarky07 14y ago
  the point is this is a states rights issue. Massachusetts has every right to do this if they want. The federal government shouldn't be doing this.
  - galadriel 14y ago
    Wait, but two post above you said that government involvement is bad because it will turn emergency rooms to DMV. I thought state of Massachusetts runs the DMV, and hence they would be utterly unqualified to give health care? Am I getting something wrong?
    - clarky07 14y ago
      I never said that they should, just that they can based on our constitution.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    why the downvote? there is nothing in the constitution about the federal government providing healthcare. Ergo, based on the 10th amendment it is the right of the states. Massachusetts can do whatever they want. The federal government cannot.
    - shrughes 14y ago
      Everybody already knows about the existence of a "states' rights" opinion on health care, and it's not consistent with Republicans' ideology on the subject. You were downvoted accordingly for making statements that have no basis in reality. You should reconsider believing or sharing your own opinions in the future.
      - clarky07 14y ago
        What does Republican ideology have to do with my comment? How does that make my comment have no basis in reality. Also, I will not reconsider believing or sharing my own opinions in the future. I'm quite sure my freedom of speech is covered. Note that my comment has since been upvoted, so at least I'm not the only one on hn who has read the constitution.
        shrughes 14y ago
        Your comment was in reply to one about the Republican candidate's inconsistent behavior when it comes to healthcare reform, defending it as an example of states' rights. But Republicans want government's hands off their Medicare at the state level as well.
        clarky07 14y ago
        Do you understand what "state's rights" means? It means that the states are free to make up their mind on a matter without the federal government interfering. You are also confusing one person with a whole party. Just because he is running as a Republican, does not in fact mean that every Republican agrees with him on every issue. He is by all account a very moderate Republican. Some Republicans might support have a state health care law similar to the one in Mass. Clearly Romney did. Many others would not in fact support that. That is their right. It is also somebody else's right to "want government's hands off their Medicare at the state level." That is a perfectly valid opinion, and it can be debated at the state level.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    1865 called. Said that States lost. 2006 called. Gov. Romney supports ObamaCare^WRomneyCare. 2012 Supreme Court called as well. Said ObamaCare was constitutional.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      1865 - Slavery was something that states shouldn't have the right to. They also shouldn't allow stealing, murder, etc. Turns out after the Civil War we didn't in fact repeal the 10th amendment. 2006 - No, as for a state and nationally are 2 different things. But even if he did, why should that matter here. I never said anything about Romeney, I don't really like him, and he most certainly was not my choice in the primaries. 2012 - now that is a pretty good point. I think they were wrong, but that is neither here nor there. For now I'll just have to deal with it, but that doesn't mean I can't support Congress repealing it, which they are perfectly capable of. Alternately, I can hope for a future non-Democrat court to actually read the constitution and overturn this recent decision. (Alternately we could amend the constitution and actually add language that makes socialist healthcare part of it. while i wouldn't support it, that would in fact be preferable to me.)
      - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        Slavery is not an enumerated right, to control or to tax, for federal powers listed in the Constitution. Therefore it should fall to the states, or their respective citizens. A war was fought over this very issue. States lost. Get over it. Functionally, Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law is similar to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One is state law, and the other one federal law. Questions were abound if PPACA was constitutional. SCOTUS said YES 5-4. Quote: "Alternately, I can hope for a future non-Democrat court to actually read the constitution and overturn this recent decision." Oh, and I believe the swing vote was Chief Justice John Roberts. Wasn't he a conservative justice, nominated by George W. Bush, after William Rehnquist passed? Facts are pesky things, aren't they?
        clarky07 14y ago
  - rdtsc 14y ago
    Why is gambling with citizens health and encouraging predatory and extortionist behavior by hospitals and insurance conglomerates on people who are sick and vulnerable an obvious states issue, while stuff like 'right to have guns in your house' is a federal law.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      Well, because the latter was specifically in the constitution, and is key to our ability to protect ourselves from tyranny. The former was not in the constitution. If you don't like it you can feel free to amend the constitution. It's been done, and it will be done again.
      - idiot 14y ago
        Is there a way I can use a gun to protect myself from "health care" tyranny (other than shooting myself in the head)?
        rdtsc 14y ago
        Funny, I actually made that point once (when I was feeling particularly sarcastic). It was rather derogatory and went something like this "Hmm interesting... all these people in West Virginia seem to hate voting for better healthcare and love voting to get more guns, so maybe their answer to healthcare problem is rational after all and it is to just put those guns to good use".

_delirium 14y ago

That is, oddly enough, basically the model for the current guaranteed-issue reform (scheduled to become operational in January 2014), despite the fact that the governor who passed it doesn't want to take any credit for it.

clarky07 14y ago
the point is this is a states rights issue. Massachusetts has every right to do this if they want. The federal government shouldn't be doing this.
- galadriel 14y ago
  Wait, but two post above you said that government involvement is bad because it will turn emergency rooms to DMV. I thought state of Massachusetts runs the DMV, and hence they would be utterly unqualified to give health care? Am I getting something wrong?
  - clarky07 14y ago
    I never said that they should, just that they can based on our constitution.
- clarky07 14y ago
  why the downvote? there is nothing in the constitution about the federal government providing healthcare. Ergo, based on the 10th amendment it is the right of the states. Massachusetts can do whatever they want. The federal government cannot.
  - shrughes 14y ago
    Everybody already knows about the existence of a "states' rights" opinion on health care, and it's not consistent with Republicans' ideology on the subject. You were downvoted accordingly for making statements that have no basis in reality. You should reconsider believing or sharing your own opinions in the future.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      What does Republican ideology have to do with my comment? How does that make my comment have no basis in reality. Also, I will not reconsider believing or sharing my own opinions in the future. I'm quite sure my freedom of speech is covered. Note that my comment has since been upvoted, so at least I'm not the only one on hn who has read the constitution.
      - shrughes 14y ago
        Your comment was in reply to one about the Republican candidate's inconsistent behavior when it comes to healthcare reform, defending it as an example of states' rights. But Republicans want government's hands off their Medicare at the state level as well.
        clarky07 14y ago
        Do you understand what "state's rights" means? It means that the states are free to make up their mind on a matter without the federal government interfering. You are also confusing one person with a whole party. Just because he is running as a Republican, does not in fact mean that every Republican agrees with him on every issue. He is by all account a very moderate Republican. Some Republicans might support have a state health care law similar to the one in Mass. Clearly Romney did. Many others would not in fact support that. That is their right. It is also somebody else's right to "want government's hands off their Medicare at the state level." That is a perfectly valid opinion, and it can be debated at the state level.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  1865 called. Said that States lost. 2006 called. Gov. Romney supports ObamaCare^WRomneyCare. 2012 Supreme Court called as well. Said ObamaCare was constitutional.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    1865 - Slavery was something that states shouldn't have the right to. They also shouldn't allow stealing, murder, etc. Turns out after the Civil War we didn't in fact repeal the 10th amendment. 2006 - No, as for a state and nationally are 2 different things. But even if he did, why should that matter here. I never said anything about Romeney, I don't really like him, and he most certainly was not my choice in the primaries. 2012 - now that is a pretty good point. I think they were wrong, but that is neither here nor there. For now I'll just have to deal with it, but that doesn't mean I can't support Congress repealing it, which they are perfectly capable of. Alternately, I can hope for a future non-Democrat court to actually read the constitution and overturn this recent decision. (Alternately we could amend the constitution and actually add language that makes socialist healthcare part of it. while i wouldn't support it, that would in fact be preferable to me.)
    - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
      Slavery is not an enumerated right, to control or to tax, for federal powers listed in the Constitution. Therefore it should fall to the states, or their respective citizens. A war was fought over this very issue. States lost. Get over it. Functionally, Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law is similar to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One is state law, and the other one federal law. Questions were abound if PPACA was constitutional. SCOTUS said YES 5-4. Quote: "Alternately, I can hope for a future non-Democrat court to actually read the constitution and overturn this recent decision." Oh, and I believe the swing vote was Chief Justice John Roberts. Wasn't he a conservative justice, nominated by George W. Bush, after William Rehnquist passed? Facts are pesky things, aren't they?
      - clarky07 14y ago
- rdtsc 14y ago
  Why is gambling with citizens health and encouraging predatory and extortionist behavior by hospitals and insurance conglomerates on people who are sick and vulnerable an obvious states issue, while stuff like 'right to have guns in your house' is a federal law.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Well, because the latter was specifically in the constitution, and is key to our ability to protect ourselves from tyranny. The former was not in the constitution. If you don't like it you can feel free to amend the constitution. It's been done, and it will be done again.
    - idiot 14y ago
      Is there a way I can use a gun to protect myself from "health care" tyranny (other than shooting myself in the head)?
      - rdtsc 14y ago
        Funny, I actually made that point once (when I was feeling particularly sarcastic). It was rather derogatory and went something like this "Hmm interesting... all these people in West Virginia seem to hate voting for better healthcare and love voting to get more guns, so maybe their answer to healthcare problem is rational after all and it is to just put those guns to good use".