Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Article 15]

How much would premiums increase if every healthy 20-something year old canceled their policy?

 

[Liability]

No, you can't opt out of property taxes...property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.

Property taxes (if you are referring to the taxes we pay to the States and localities on our homes and real estate holdings) are levied not by the Federal Government, but by the States (and localities). So, no. You cannot opt out of them.

But the fact that STATE imposed property taxes are not a violation of he Constitution tells us NOTHING about the Constitutionality of Medicare or "Health care." The reason is pretty basic, too:

The States have authority to do some things which the Federal Government has not been granted such authority to do.

 

[urdrwho]

I agree with your argument. If the health care reform plan is constitutional, it is also constitutional to force city dwellers to buy auto insurance. The argument is made that at some point you will use health care. That is a false argument. There are young people that will be killed instantly in accidents and may never use health care. So not "all" will get to use health care.

So it is with auto insurance and city dwellers. Some may at some point need auto insurance and they should share in the risk pool to pay for those that can not or will not pay.

Wonder how such an idea would sit with the people in the Manhattan high rise, urban dwellers? They would probably cry foul just like the liberal minded actor Mr Baldwin did when New York wanted to take more taxes from him.

Even more fun would be to create a new health care reform and charge the Hollywood set health premiums as a percentage of income without a cap. Let me see, Charlie Sheen makes $2 million an episode.....that income would create one heck of a health insurance premium.

The Hollywood elite that tell us how we should cough up more tax would cry like wolves at the moon. For some reason they think that when things get bad, they feel it more.

"What’s interesting about celebrities is the fact that there’s a certain hemisphere in their brain that’s more lit up than yours and mine. And when things get bad, it becomes much more painful for them and frightening for them than your traditional businessman."

because you'd destroy everything good about the law for no reason.

the part you don't like is what pays for the rest of it.

Get rid of the whole thing and write something that IS constitutional....


Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to by insurance he doesn't want or need?

Are we going to start requiring city-dwelling high risers who don't own cars to buy auto insurance anyway to pay for the idiots who drive around without it?

does anyone else want to tackle these questions?

 

[Liability]

I agree with your argument. If the health care reform plan is constitutional, it is also constitutional to force city dwellers to buy auto insurance. The argument is made that at some point you will use health care. That is a false argument. There are young people that will be killed instantly in accidents and may never use health care. So not "all" will get to use health care.

So it is with auto insurance and city dwellers. Some may at some point need auto insurance and they should share in the risk pool to pay for those that can not or will not pay.

Wonder how such an idea would sit with the people in the Manhattan high rise, urban dwellers? They would probably cry foul just like the liberal minded actor Mr Baldwin did when New York wanted to take more taxes from him.

Even more fun would be to create a new health care reform and charge the Hollywood set health premiums as a percentage of income without a cap. Let me see, Charlie Sheen makes $2 million an episode.....that income would create one heck of a health insurance premium.

The Hollywood elite that tell us how we should cough up more tax would cry like wolves at the moon. For some reason they think that when things get bad, they feel it more.

"What’s interesting about celebrities is the fact that there’s a certain hemisphere in their brain that’s more lit up than yours and mine. And when things get bad, it becomes much more painful for them and frightening for them than your traditional businessman."

Get rid of the whole thing and write something that IS constitutional....


Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to by insurance he doesn't want or need?

Are we going to start requiring city-dwelling high risers who don't own cars to buy auto insurance anyway to pay for the idiots who drive around without it?

does anyone else want to tackle these questions?

The "logic" of comparing the Obamacare mandated health insurance to the requirement that drivers must have insurance to register their cars lacks validity.

A driver's license is a license. It is a privilege. It is not a "right." STATES may condition the ability of its people to register (and drive) cars upon the requirement of having insurance.

Nowhere, however, in our Federal Constitution was authority granted to Congress to legislate that "we, the People" can be required to purchase insurance. Congress can legislate interstate commerce, but that's not akin to telling us WHAT we MUST purchase.

Now, if the STATES tried to tell ALL of us (whether we own a car, have a license or wish to drive at all) that we must pay some across the board tax to create an insurance pool for the benefit of those who do drive, there might be a small problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

no. same as i couldn't opt out of having any part of my taxes go for iraq or for baby bush's million dollar study on whether prayer works.

I never saw a property tax levied by the federal government. It is an important distinction between fed powers and state/local powers.
One that doubtless eludes you, "counselor."

Who pays for the medical bills of the guy who chooses not to buy insurance, gets sick, and then files for bankruptcy?

Are you downright stupid that you don't remember this conversation from yesterday?

You've answered your own question. When they file for bankruptcy the medical providers pay the bills. Of course they must count unreimbursed expenses in their fees. But how is that different from universal insurance? In both cases responsible people subsidize irresponsible people. But in the present circumstance it is only people who use medical services doing the subsidizing. Under Obamacare it is everyone.

 

[boedicca]

and if property tax is purchasing education, then can people without kids opt out of that part of it?

no. same as i couldn't opt out of having any part of my taxes go for iraq or for baby bush's million dollar study on whether prayer works.

I never saw a property tax levied by the federal government. It is an important distinction between fed powers and state/local powers.
One that doubtless eludes you, "counselor."

True, but that isn't stopping the Federal Gubmint from trying to find ways to tax property.

I predicted some years ago that the Feds would one day place a "property tax" on the balances in savings and investment accounts. In essence, the death tax is just such a tax - but I'm sure they are looking at ways to do this while one is still alive.

 

[Zander]

Leftwing Translation of this thread:

We really don't care about the lies, kickbacks, and assorted shady schemes used to pass Obamacare, we still want it. We don't care if it bankrupts the country, and destroys our medical system, we still want it. We don't care that Obama and the Democrats that passed this POS law swore up and down that "it's not a tax!" - if calling it a tax means we can keep it- it's now a tax- and we STILL WANT IT. If you disagree with us you are a "wingnut" extremist who hates children and drowns puppies.

I think that sums it up pretty well!

 

[Sallow]

Yay..

In the right wing world I can be a doctor, lawyer, pilot..or just about anything. And the government has absolutely no say.

Heck..I can open up a pot stand on the street.

 

[Liability]

Yay..

In the right wing world I can be a doctor, lawyer, pilot..or just about anything. And the government has absolutely no say.

Heck..I can open up a pot stand on the street.

In what universe does that ^ post make any sense?

 

[midcan5]

Why is it so hard for Americans to do good things for each other and the nation? Who controls and decides if an idea is good or bad and why? Everyone with healthcare, pays now for everyone without HC who need medical services. Spreading the cost around seems like the fair, sensible, and humane thing to do.

"There is nothing inherently wrong with spending 17 per cent of GDP on health care if the result is a really healthy population. Just like there is nothing wrong with a "big" budget deficit if the money goes to making good jobs for working people, cleaning up their cities and environment and bettering schools instead of making rich financiers richer. But given the fact that countless pregnant women go without sonograms, diabetes is near epidemic proportions, dialysis patients on average die within five years (in Japan they live 20) and, most significantly, the number of primary care doctors remains very low -- taking preventive care off the agenda for most -- the US health care system is a travesty." Carl Ginsburg: The Actually Existing Health Care System

# Is the uninsured problem still that serious? ANSWER Need for UHC


I revised this but this will do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

 

[Liability]

Why is it so hard for Americans to do good things for each other and the nation? Who controls and decides if an idea is good or bad and why? Everyone with healthcare, pays now for everyone without HC who need medical services. Spreading the cost around seems like the fair, sensible, and humane thing to do.

"There is nothing inherently wrong with spending 17 per cent of GDP on health care if the result is a really healthy population. Just like there is nothing wrong with a "big" budget deficit if the money goes to making good jobs for working people, cleaning up their cities and environment and bettering schools instead of making rich financiers richer. But given the fact that countless pregnant women go without sonograms, diabetes is near epidemic proportions, dialysis patients on average die within five years (in Japan they live 20) and, most significantly, the number of primary care doctors remains very low -- taking preventive care off the agenda for most -- the US health care system is a travesty." Carl Ginsburg: The Actually Existing Health Care System

# Is the uninsured problem still that serious? ANSWER Need for UHC


I revised this but this will do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

Who says it has ever been hard for Americans to do good things for Americans?

WE decide what ideas are good and which is bad. Who the devil do you imagine SHOULD decide?

Those who pay for health-care now (via group insurance policies, etc) do so voluntarily. That whole "choice" thing really seems to irritate the liberal ass.

On what basis do you imagine that you (or any other group of people for that matter) have any right to compel me to provide a portion of my wealth to you or to others? Try to answer JUST that question, if you can. Note: I'm not asking you to tell me if you think it's moral to get me to assist those who are unable to help themselves. I will hazard the guess ahead of time. Your notions of what constitutes "morality" advise you that it is moral to get those with some spare change to assist those lacking it. but, again, that is NOT the question.

The question is: on what BASIS do you imagine that you have a right to compel me to be so "giving?"

It's one thing to ask for help. It's another thing to compel it. So, I am seriously seeking your answer to the question of "on what basis" can you claim the right or the authority to compel it?

 

[Sallow]

Line-item tax returns!

Just in time too..whew.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

 

[urdrwho]

The quote below was the premise. Due to the uninsured, If they can mandate you purchase health insurance then they should be able to mandate you purchase auto insurance to keep the risk pool happy. They could mandate and mandate and mandate all in the name of public good.

After elected, the elected Ones should go to work two days.....one day to drive to Washington and the next day to drive away from Washington. I would feel safer!

"Now, if the STATES tried to tell ALL of us (whether we own a car, have a license or wish to drive at all) that we must pay some across the board tax to create an insurance pool for the benefit of those who do drive, there might be a small problem."

 

[Foxfyre]

property taxes are constitutional and if THEY are so is medicare and health care.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

I'm having a real tough time making that connection myself.

 

[Sheldon]

Personally, if this law gets stuck down by SCOTUS I'll see it as a victory for health care reform, because it will shove the single-payer option back into the middle of the table.

I disagree. The support of single payer is even less than the current law and the same goes for those in the Congress. Plus, as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency single payer is DOA.

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

 

[Bern80]

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

There are all kinds of things that can be done that have been suggested numberous times. Here are a few mentioned by Big Fitz on another thread.


1. End state and federal mandates on insurance. Let people pick the type of coverage they want just like car, homeowners and life insurance.

2. Force open pricing by all medical agencies and facilities for all treatments so people may comparison sop.

3. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines increasing the size of the pool of competition.

4. End restrictions on separating medical facilities from what is currently called "insurance".

5. End tax exemptions to businesses that pay employees insurance but give it to the individual account holder.

6. End commercial pharmaceutical advertising. Since that prohibition was ended in 1994, prices have increased over 300% for drugs and development while advertising budgets shot through the roof increasing drug costs.

7. Institute 'loser pays' tort reform. This ends frivolent lawsuits and ambulance chasers that force facilities to practice "defensive mediine".

8.BAN all federal government provision or administration of health care with the only exception being for active military personnel. Veterans must seek private care.

9. BAN federal tax dollars from being spent on health care related subsidation. this includes privatization of Medicare and medicaid on the federal level. Seek private companies to take over and administer these programs.

10. End all subsidies to health industry related businesses and individuals. Offer tax incentives to private individuals to give to health care charities.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, if this law gets stuck down by SCOTUS I'll see it as a victory for health care reform, because it will shove the single-payer option back into the middle of the table.

I disagree. The support of single payer is even less than the current law and the same goes for those in the Congress. Plus, as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency single payer is DOA.

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

 

[Immanuel]

Why is it so hard for Americans to do good things for each other and the nation? Who controls and decides if an idea is good or bad and why? Everyone with healthcare, pays now for everyone without HC who need medical services. Spreading the cost around seems like the fair, sensible, and humane thing to do.

"There is nothing inherently wrong with spending 17 per cent of GDP on health care if the result is a really healthy population. Just like there is nothing wrong with a "big" budget deficit if the money goes to making good jobs for working people, cleaning up their cities and environment and bettering schools instead of making rich financiers richer. But given the fact that countless pregnant women go without sonograms, diabetes is near epidemic proportions, dialysis patients on average die within five years (in Japan they live 20) and, most significantly, the number of primary care doctors remains very low -- taking preventive care off the agenda for most -- the US health care system is a travesty." Carl Ginsburg: The Actually Existing Health Care System

# Is the uninsured problem still that serious? ANSWER Need for UHC


I revised this but this will do.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...241-answers-to-all-your-questions-on-uhc.html

The way I see it is that in this particular instance it is the right wing that is trying to do what is right for the people of this great land. President Obama's Health Care Reform is a disaster that I believe will seriously risk the ability of this nation to continue into the future. Nipping it in the bud is good for all Americans... as long as we go back to the drawing board and work on real reform, that is.

Immie

 

[Sheldon]

I disagree. The support of single payer is even less than the current law and the same goes for those in the Congress. Plus, as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency single payer is DOA.

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

That bold part sounds good.

Aren't health insurers already under anti-trust laws? Maybe those laws need to be tweaked, but no doubt the affected companies would be having a say on what exactly gets tweaked.

Some of those things make sense, and some seem like rearranging deck chairs. I just have a moral problem with health care being for profit, so I'm looking at the route of something like expanding Medicaid. I realize not everyone shares this view, but oh well.