advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: edgarbc1
Date: January 31, 2011 02:26PM
check it out..


The full text of the decision from Federal Judge Roger Vinson is not available yet, but according to reporters who've seen the decision, he's ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. The ruling favors of the 26 state attorney generals challenging the law. The judge ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2011 02:34PM by edgarbc1.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Acer
Date: January 31, 2011 02:48PM
They picked that District because they knew the judge was sympathetic.

By filing the lawsuit in Pensacola, Mr. McCollum ensured that the case would be heard by a Republican appointee to the District Court, and then by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, a generally conservative bench that handles cases from Florida. Judge Vinson, a senior judge who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan, is a former naval aviator and a member of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, as well as the president of the American Camellia Society.

[www.nytimes.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: the_poochies
Date: January 31, 2011 02:56PM
Hmmmm....my cousin was heartened by Romneycare Obamacare because it meant that she would be eligible for health insurance with her pre-existing condition. Now, she may lose her coverage.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 03:18PM
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: edgarbc1
Date: January 31, 2011 03:27PM
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

agree smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Black Tea
Date: January 31, 2011 03:40PM
Let's face it, only an uneducated moron would think that Obamacare was constitutional.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: JPK
Date: January 31, 2011 03:44PM
BT,

I think you really meant "Moran". This is the MR forums, lets keep our terminology consistent!

JPK
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Dakota
Date: January 31, 2011 03:47PM
This is by far the most succinct description of where health care reforms headed if not stopped,

Vinson said it is, writing in his 78-page ruling that if the government can require people to buy health insurance, it could also regulate food the same way.
"Or, as discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote, "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Of course, there are people here who ask yeah, what is wrong with that? They won't admit to it, though.



After you discover you're riding a dead horse, your best strategy is to dismount.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: hal
Date: January 31, 2011 03:57PM
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

how's that working out for ya?

ha ha ha ha ha - whatta idiot
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Acer
Date: January 31, 2011 04:01PM
I look forward to the Republican's alternative solutions.

Oh, wait, there won't be any, because the current method is just fine according to them. The one where people who cannot afford it get "access" to the best health care in the world, then the hospital charges the rest of us the difference.

Speaking for myself, I can certainly afford to have my insurance premiums hiked 10 to 40% year after year to maintain the status quo.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 04:06PM
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

how's that working out for ya?

ha ha ha ha ha - whatta idiot

Hal,

If you cannot understand the fundamental difference between auto insurance and health care insurance I suggest you refrain from calling others idiots.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Dakota
Date: January 31, 2011 04:08PM
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

how's that working out for ya?

ha ha ha ha ha - whatta idiot

Gawd, this car insurance analogy is old. You better update your playbook because every idiot, that would be you, knows the difference. FYI, I don't have to buy car insurance.



After you discover you're riding a dead horse, your best strategy is to dismount.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Pam
Date: January 31, 2011 04:15PM
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: January 31, 2011 04:20PM
Scotus bound. I wonder what will happen next ?

And of course, if the SCOTUS agrees with Judge Vinson, you won't see anything until 2013 or later. Sigh.

Guess I better get my daughter to go to the doctor while she's still on my healthcare.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 04:21PM
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.

Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance. Auto insurance is so clearly different than auto insurance it is strange that the analogy keeps coming up.

Auto insurance is required for those who choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Health care insurance (under the individual mandate) would be for those who happen to be born in the U.S.

See the difference?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: January 31, 2011 04:22PM
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

Buying a car is not mandatory.





I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Grace62
Date: January 31, 2011 04:27PM
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

Buying a car is not mandatory.

Walking around with a human body pretty much is though.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Pam
Date: January 31, 2011 04:28PM
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.

Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance. Auto insurance is so clearly different than auto insurance it is strange that the analogy keeps coming up.

Auto insurance is required for those who choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Health care insurance (under the individual mandate) would be for those who happen to be born in the U.S.

See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 04:33PM
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.

Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance. Auto insurance is so clearly different than auto insurance it is strange that the analogy keeps coming up.

Auto insurance is required for those who choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Health care insurance (under the individual mandate) would be for those who happen to be born in the U.S.

See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference.

Then I say you are being disingenuous. The alternative is that you don't know what having a choice means.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: January 31, 2011 04:34PM
Can we all agree that our national 'healthcare system' is broken ?

Can we all agree that the current healthcare changes were the equivalent of too many cooks in the kitchen?

Ok, good.

Now... can we all tell our congresscritters that now would be a perfect time to 'fix' what is broken ?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Rick-o
Date: January 31, 2011 04:35PM
Quote
cbelt3
Can we all agree that our national 'healthcare system' is broken ?

Can we all agree that the current healthcare changes were the equivalent of too many cooks in the kitchen?

Ok, good.

Now... can we all tell our congresscritters that now would be a perfect time to 'fix' what is broken ?

Heh! Good luck with that! eye rolling smiley



Mr. Lahey: A lot of people, don’t know how to drink. They drink against the grain of the liquor. And when you drink against the grain of the liquor? You lose.

Randy: What the @#$%& are you talking about?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Dakota
Date: January 31, 2011 04:36PM
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.

Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance. Auto insurance is so clearly different than auto insurance it is strange that the analogy keeps coming up.

Auto insurance is required for those who choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Health care insurance (under the individual mandate) would be for those who happen to be born in the U.S.

See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference.

My aging mother has no car insurance. What law is she violating?



After you discover you're riding a dead horse, your best strategy is to dismount.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Mr Downtown
Date: January 31, 2011 04:36PM
Quote
Naysayer
Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance.

Wait wait wait. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. State governments could force all residents to purchase health insurance. State governments could force all residents to purchase USB scales or teddy bears.

The only problem with the health insurance mandate is that Congress does not have a "general police power" like state legislatures do.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: January 31, 2011 04:36PM
While I'm not sure about the whole dictating aspect of mandatory insurance, I thought the whole point of having car insurance is that if you cause damage to someone else and can't pay for it, your insurance would ensure you would.

So similarily, if one doesn't have health insurance, but then requires (for example emergency) medical treatment but can't afford it, then it costs the rest of us for that care.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: mattkime
Date: January 31, 2011 04:37PM
>>Can we all agree that our national 'healthcare system' is broken ?

frankly, we can't.

the infighting is much more fun than progress.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: edgarbc1
Date: January 31, 2011 04:40PM
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’”

..so says King Obama..

oh snap smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: January 31, 2011 04:42PM
Good to see you've got no bias...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 04:43PM
Quote
Mr Downtown
Quote
Naysayer
Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance.

Wait wait wait. I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. State governments could force all residents to purchase health insurance. State governments could force all residents to purchase USB scales or teddy bears.

The only problem with the health insurance mandate is that Congress does not have a "general police power" like state legislatures do.

I do not have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of any issue. Have you heard of equal protection? States cannot require me to buy USB scales.

Are you also being disingenuous?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 04:46PM
Quote
Carnos Jax
While I'm not sure about the whole dictating aspect of mandatory insurance, I thought the whole point of having car insurance is that if you cause damage to someone else and can't pay for it, your insurance would ensure you would.

So similarily, if one doesn't have health insurance, but then requires (for example emergency) medical treatment but can't afford it, then it costs the rest of us for that care.

How can I cause damage if I choose not to operate a motor vehicle on a public road?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: January 31, 2011 04:47PM
Is insurance mandatory for people who don't operate motor vehicles?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: January 31, 2011 04:48PM
Quote
Grace62
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

Buying a car is not mandatory.

Walking around with a human body pretty much is though.

Your point being?

Mandatory liability insurance indemnifies drivers who cause accidents and/or damages to other parties -- including pedestrians. It does nothing to insure the drivers' own car, the type of insurance which is not required by law, only by the holders of liens against a financed car's value.

You don't need liability insurance for walking around.





I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: January 31, 2011 04:49PM
Because you can force someone to give you emergency medical treatment but you can't force someone to fix your car?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: edgarbc1
Date: January 31, 2011 04:57PM
Quote
Carnos Jax
Because you can force someone to give you emergency medical treatment but you can't force someone to fix your car?

you are onto something there....

ObamaAutoCare
never again will we have to pay for our own auto repairs.. our neighbors will!
im liking it already! (my car is in the shop today..)

but maybe people without cars will instead get a subsidy check for not owning a car... every city will turn into Portland!
a funny link
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: mattkime
Date: January 31, 2011 04:58PM
i have no position on whether the law allows mandatory insurance purchase but i really don't give a @#$%&.

the idea that some people should be "free" of healthcare is ridiculous. maybe pigs can fly, but that doesn't mean we should chain them all down just in case.

we used to be free of mandatory seat belts too. oh god, the repression!



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: January 31, 2011 05:00PM
I would add one caveat to the whole 'you can choose or not choose' to drive a motor vehicle thing. In many regions of the U.S., it is almost impossible to function in society without one. For the same reason other consumer commodities have some regulation (price gouging laws during times of crisis are just one example...I'm sure we can think of many more). Not saying that I necessarily agree/disagree with it, I can see the points to be made on both sides of the coin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Mr Downtown
Date: January 31, 2011 05:04PM
Quote
Naysayer
Have you heard of equal protection? States cannot require me to buy USB scales.

Yes, I'm pretty familiar with equal protection analysis. How would that have anything to do with the plenary police power held by states? You do know what plenary means, right?

Quote

Are you also being disingenuous?

No, I strongly believe we should have single-payer or Medicare-for-all. But I also have a pretty good understanding of constitutional law. See our earlier discussion here.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: January 31, 2011 05:10PM
Quote
Carnos Jax
I would add one caveat to the whole 'you can choose or not choose' to drive a motor vehicle thing. In many regions of the U.S., it is almost impossible to function in society without one.

You can choose not to live in those places.
You can also choose to buy the cheapest car and, often, a minimal state insurance plan.

Or you can still choose not to own a car if you feel being forced to buy liability insurance is a form of oppression.

But if you drive uninsured and hit someone, you're going to be in for a world of hurt from someone else whose "rights you just violated" (and their lawyer).





I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: January 31, 2011 05:12PM
Yes, technically speaking, you are correct Seacrest. What I'm trying to show that it's not exactly black and white as you seem (to me) to make it so.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 05:15PM
Quote
Mr Downtown
Quote
Naysayer
Have you heard of equal protection? States cannot require me to buy USB scales.

Yes, I'm pretty familiar with equal protection analysis. How would that have anything to do with the plenary police power held by states? You do know what plenary means, right?

Quote

Are you also being disingenuous?

No, I strongly believe we should have single-payer or Medicare-for-all. But I also have a pretty good understanding of constitutional law. See our earlier discussion here.

If you understand constitutional law...

Then you are being disingenuous.

If you understand constitutional law...

You know the federal government cannot allow a state government to force me to buy anything including the USB scale you referred to earlier.

Please tell me what plenary means. Please explain how it is germane to the actual topic and please explain how the single payer system you want equates to the individual mandate.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: January 31, 2011 05:20PM
No, it is black and white.
Because we're talking apples and oranges here.





I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Grace62
Date: January 31, 2011 05:38PM
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
Grace62
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

Buying a car is not mandatory.

Walking around with a human body pretty much is though.

Your point being?

Mandatory liability insurance indemnifies drivers who cause accidents and/or damages to other parties -- including pedestrians. It does nothing to insure the drivers' own car, the type of insurance which is not required by law, only by the holders of liens against a financed car's value.

You don't need liability insurance for walking around.

But you should!

We all walk around with bodies that will eventually need medical care, including our birth and our death and lots of stuff in between. It's not fair to have only some people pay for the care that everyone is going to use, nor is it fair to have a system that says some can get their care paid for with insurance and others cannot, under almost any circumstance.

I think it's ludicrous to compare our system of paying for health care costs to state requirements for auto insurance.
Human health and well-being on par with an automobile? Good lord.
A health care system will only be fair if everyone participates and if everyone is ALLOWED to participate, anything less becomes by definition unfair.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Greg
Date: January 31, 2011 05:39PM
I have insurance through work.

Two MRIs, $30 each. A single monthly prescription is $150 instead of $1000. Durable medical equipment, thousands of dollars' worth, will be paid for 90% by my employer.

I'm lucky. I hate my boss, though I'll be giving him a @#$%& daily, just in case.

I would not want to be poor and uninsured. Though, if I were, I guess I'd have to pull myself up by my bootstraps or some crap.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Pam
Date: January 31, 2011 05:42PM
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.

Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance. Auto insurance is so clearly different than auto insurance it is strange that the analogy keeps coming up.

Auto insurance is required for those who choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Health care insurance (under the individual mandate) would be for those who happen to be born in the U.S.

See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference.

Then I say you are being disingenuous. The alternative is that you don't know what having a choice means.

I'm disingenuous because I don't agree with you? Why not just call me unpatriotic or a communist rather than debate the issue?

Everyone who owns a car, is a resident of Va, must register said vehicle, and must have car insurance or pay $500. If one does not own a car, then that resident isn't going to be responsible for a traffic accident. Why make a nondriver pay for what isn't his/her responsibility?

Healthcare on the other hand is used by everyone at some point in time with few exceptions. Not having health insurance, but needing care means someone has to pay for it. If the patient and taxpayers are lucky, the patient will be able to pay their healthcare bills out of their own pocket. However, that's too often not the case. So there's a reverse responsibility issue, non culpable taxpayers having to pick up the bills for someone without healthcare.

Given all of the teeth gnashing from the right about the welfare state, about paying various benefits for the so-called lazy component of society, I really don't understand why they don't want everyone to have healthcare insurance. Or pay a fine as is the case for car insurance.

Another argument I often hear is giving people the same healthcare congress has. Well guess what, that requires a pool of people. It also sounds a lot like a national plan.

Contradictory to my ears.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Naysayer
Date: January 31, 2011 05:49PM
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
Quote
Pam
Quote
Naysayer
The individual mandate was always the wrong way.

Being American means you are free to pursue happiness.

Being American does not mean you should be under penalty of law to buy something you do not want.

If you want to argue state versus federal authority, there may be a point. However, this point is not being used properly. For example, in Va you must have car insurance to get registered in the state or pay $500. Your choice. But in this state republicans make it sound like they'd never require people to buy insurance much less pay a fine for not doing so. It's partisan politics so Obama can't get credit for getting health care reform passed. Much less acknowledge how many republican ideas are in the plan.

I'm with Obama, fix/modify what has been passed and move on. If the states become responsible for requiring, or not, insurance, stop playing partisan games just to manipulate rather than help people.

Neither state nor federal government have the right to make Americans purchase health care insurance. Auto insurance is so clearly different than auto insurance it is strange that the analogy keeps coming up.

Auto insurance is required for those who choose to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. Health care insurance (under the individual mandate) would be for those who happen to be born in the U.S.

See the difference?

No, I don't see a difference.

Then I say you are being disingenuous. The alternative is that you don't know what having a choice means.

I'm disingenuous because I don't agree with you? Why not just call me unpatriotic or a communist rather than debate the issue?

Everyone who owns a car, is a resident of Va, must register said vehicle, and must have car insurance or pay $500. If one does not own a car, then that resident isn't going to be responsible for a traffic accident. Why make a nondriver pay for what isn't his/her responsibility?

Healthcare on the other hand is used by everyone at some point in time with few exceptions. Not having health insurance, but needing care means someone has to pay for it. If the patient and taxpayers are lucky, the patient will be able to pay their healthcare bills out of their own pocket. However, that's too often not the case. So there's a reverse responsibility issue, non culpable taxpayers having to pick up the bills for someone without healthcare.

Given all of the teeth gnashing from the right about the welfare state, about paying various benefits for the so-called lazy component of society, I really don't understand why they don't want everyone to have healthcare insurance. Or pay a fine as is the case for car insurance.

Another argument I often hear is giving people the same healthcare congress has. Well guess what, that requires a pool of people. It also sounds a lot like a national plan.

Contradictory to my ears.

"I'm disingenuous because I don't agree with you?"

No, you are disingenuous because you knowingly refuse to accept the difference between auto and health care insurance.

"Healthcare on the other hand is used by everyone at some point in time with few exceptions."

And here is the crux of what you pretend to not comprehend. With few exceptions? You really believe that some people rarely need medical care AND that those same people cannot or do not simply pay for the care that they need when they need it.

And you champion the individual mandate as the solution.

What about simply giving all Americans access to basic health care simply because we are American?

Why make it a mandate?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2011 05:54PM by Naysayer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Mr Downtown
Date: January 31, 2011 05:52PM
Quote
Naysayer
the federal government cannot allow a state government to force me to buy anything including the USB scale you referred to earlier.

Can you cite any case supporting this rather extraordinary claim? Substantive due process died many decades ago.

Under our unique system of federalism, the states have plenary power to make any requirement of their citizens, unless it infringes on some fundamental right that has been extended (by incorporation, through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause), unless it creates a "suspect classification" (by, for example, favoring one race over another), or unless that power was explicitly given over to Congress (such as the power to make war or to coin money).

Forcing individual citizens to do something—a general police power—is not one of the powers the states gave Congress. The Commerce Clause has pretty specific jurisprudence behind it, and limits have been reached a couple of times in recent years. Civil Rights-era cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel or Daniel v. Paul made it seem like Congress's power was unlimited, but read the constraints laid down more recently in Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971), and U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Quote

please explain how the single payer system you want equates to the individual mandate.

It doesn't, and that's the problem. Congress could have approved a tax, spent the proceeds on the General Welfare (for health care), and even exempted or given a deduction to people who already had insurance. "Medicare for All" would clearly be within the Section Eight taxing and spending power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2011 05:56PM by Mr Downtown.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Seacrest
Date: January 31, 2011 05:55PM
Quote
Grace62
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
Grace62
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

Buying a car is not mandatory.

Walking around with a human body pretty much is though.

Your point being?

Mandatory liability insurance indemnifies drivers who cause accidents and/or damages to other parties -- including pedestrians. It does nothing to insure the drivers' own car, the type of insurance which is not required by law, only by the holders of liens against a financed car's value.

You don't need liability insurance for walking around.

But you should!

We all walk around with bodies that will eventually need medical care, including our birth and our death and lots of stuff in between. It's not fair to have only some people pay for the care that everyone is going to use, nor is it fair to have a system that says some can get their care paid for with insurance and others cannot, under almost any circumstance.

I think it's ludicrous to compare our system of paying for health care costs to state requirements for auto insurance.
Human health and well-being on par with an automobile? Good lord.
A health care system will only be fair if everyone participates and if everyone is ALLOWED to participate, anything less becomes by definition unfair.

But they are different kinds of insurance.
Once again: the insurance you are "forced" to pay for for your car is not for YOUR car, it is for the potential damage that your car (technically any car you drive) is capable of inflicting on others (cars, persons, or anything else).

Note that extended warranties (which would cover repairs to YOUR car, not others' and is actually closer to health insurance) are NOT mandatory anywhere in the U.S.

This is why the discussion of the mandatory car insurance requirements is not relevant to the discussion of mandatory health insurance requirements, full stop.

If you want to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of single-payer or subsidized health care, then have at it, but it's got nothing to do with cars whatsoever.





I am not Ryan Seacrest, and I do not approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: JJ
Date: January 31, 2011 05:59PM
.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2011 06:00PM by JJ.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Black
Date: January 31, 2011 06:10PM
Quote
JJ
.

agree smiley




New forum user map 8/2015: [www.zeemaps.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: Grace62
Date: January 31, 2011 06:13PM
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
Grace62
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
Grace62
Quote
Seacrest
Quote
hal
so dakota, I assume that you refuse to buy car insurance since it's required by law too - right?

Buying a car is not mandatory.

Walking around with a human body pretty much is though.

Your point being?

Mandatory liability insurance indemnifies drivers who cause accidents and/or damages to other parties -- including pedestrians. It does nothing to insure the drivers' own car, the type of insurance which is not required by law, only by the holders of liens against a financed car's value.

You don't need liability insurance for walking around.

But you should!

We all walk around with bodies that will eventually need medical care, including our birth and our death and lots of stuff in between. It's not fair to have only some people pay for the care that everyone is going to use, nor is it fair to have a system that says some can get their care paid for with insurance and others cannot, under almost any circumstance.

I think it's ludicrous to compare our system of paying for health care costs to state requirements for auto insurance.
Human health and well-being on par with an automobile? Good lord.

A health care system will only be fair if everyone participates and if everyone is ALLOWED to participate, anything less becomes by definition unfair.

But they are different kinds of insurance.
Once again: the insurance you are "forced" to pay for for your car is not for YOUR car, it is for the potential damage that your car (technically any car you drive) is capable of inflicting on others (cars, persons, or anything else).

Note that extended warranties (which would cover repairs to YOUR car, not others' and is actually closer to health insurance) are NOT mandatory anywhere in the U.S.

This is why the discussion of the mandatory car insurance requirements is not relevant to the discussion of mandatory health insurance requirements, full stop.

If you want to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of single-payer or subsidized health care, then have at it, but it's got nothing to do with cars whatsoever.

Good lord man that is what I'm saying!!! What on earth was all that for?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Obamacare - null and void!
Posted by: JJ
Date: January 31, 2011 06:21PM
You know when you think you might have something to contribute, but then you realize you have been drinking and that you rarely even visit the forum anymore...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 161
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020