Go On Record Here About The Mandate

[g5000]

And it would be most helpful if someone would reiterate they argument about why it is okay that a state makes you buy auto insurance but why it is not okay to be forced to buy health insurance.

I think it's wrong in both cases. Some people are convinced its different because driving on state roads isn't a right. But as far as I'm concerned everyone has a right to access the commons that are paid for by their taxes, period.

If states can force you to buy auto insurance to drive on their roads, I wonder why the federal government doesn't force you to buy auto insurance to drive on interstates.

 

[g5000]

There is no mandate...only a tax.

No different than giving a tax break for buying solar panels or a hybrid.

It is different, shit-for-brains. You don't have to buy solar panels if you don't want them. Of course, that will soon change if Obama remains in office.

And if you choose not to buy solar panels, you don't get the tax break, therefore you pay more to the government in taxes than someone who bought them.

The healthcare tax is the liberal version of the tax break in reverse.

Instead of giving a tax break for getting health insurance, they charge you more taxes for not getting it.

This is actually a very interesting argument which has given me food for thought.

However, I am opposed to subsidies or tax breaks for buying products as much as I am opposed to penalties for not buying products.

 

[dblack]

It is different, shit-for-brains. You don't have to buy solar panels if you don't want them. Of course, that will soon change if Obama remains in office.

And if you choose not to buy solar panels, you don't get the tax break, therefore you pay more to the government in taxes than someone who bought them.

The healthcare tax is the liberal version of the tax break in reverse.

Instead of giving a tax break for getting health insurance, they charge you more taxes for not getting it.

This is actually a very interesting argument which has given me food for thought.

However, I am opposed to subsidies or tax breaks for buying products as much as I am opposed to penalties for not buying products.

You might be interested in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...-tax-incentives-are-mandates.html#post5542505

 

[tererun]

Is it okay to force someone to buy health insurance against their will and tax them if they don't?

According to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and four liberal Associate Justices, the answer is now "yes."

According to any honest interpretation of the Constitution and the words of the ObamaCare Act, of course the answer is "no."

The former, sadly, for now, prevails.

You misspelled Romneycare act.

 

[tererun]

And it would be most helpful if someone would reiterate they argument about why it is okay that a state makes you buy auto insurance but why it is not okay to be forced to buy health insurance.

What I have always heard as a retort to the auto insurance argument is that you have a choice of whether or not to own a car, whereas you don't have a choice to buy health insurance with a mandate. That it is about personal freedom to choose.

Is this correct?

Yes, but you do not have a choice in paying taxes to take care of highways even if you do not own a car. Good try, but you fail. There are lots of things in this country we pay taxes for that we do not want to.

Do you think i want to pay for catholic school vouchers so they can use tax money to tell kids the loch ness monster disproves evolution.

Do you think i want to pay tax money to enact laws to restrict gay marriage?

Do you think I want to pay tax money to clean up the environmental mess companies make?

hell, i don't even want to pay congress.

So fucking learn to deal with the world, and when you find a country that does not operate on taxes let us all know. I hear moonbase gingrich is tax free.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is forcing someone to buy health insurance okay or not?

This is how it works;

If you buy or have ins, you're all good.

If you don't, and are too poor or dumb to get it, everyone else pays for you through taxes.

If you don't, but can, you get taxed on doing nothing.


Yes that's right, the government now taxes nothing.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Is it okay to force someone to buy health insurance against their will and tax them if they don't?

No one is ‘forced’ to buy health insurance, the tax is not punitive and is no more or less appropriate than any other taxing provision.

For republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and the rest of the president’s enemies on the right, however, relating the facts of the issue is pointless, as they’ll blindly adhere to their partisan lies and contrivances, willfully ignorant of the truth.

Wow Clayton, you did a great job in getting out the "All the President's enemies" mantra. I just wish you'd been more specific with 'the rest', it's nice to know who your allies are, you know?

 

[Listening]

Is forcing someone to buy health insurance okay or not?

This is how it works;

If you buy or have ins, you're all good.

If you don't, and are too poor or dumb to get it, everyone else pays for you through taxes.

If you don't, but can, you get taxed on doing nothing.


Yes that's right, the government now taxes nothing.

On the short term....it looks like it will be all to attractive for small businesses to drop you and pay you money to hope into an exchange...whereby you become subsidized in several respects by the American Taxpayer.

Just Great !

 

[JohnA]

I may have to amend my no.

Is it okay for the government to force you not to speed?

I mean, speeding itself hurts no one at the time you get the ticket...the penalty is designed to modify the drivers habits to supposedly lessen the chance of future danger to himself and others.

Is coercing people into buying health insurance the same, or different?

You can see how buying health insurance is similar...not having it could certainly hurt you, and it could also hurt others when you received services you couldn't pay for.

Like speeding, you could go for a long time...perhaps indefinitely without ever causing/having an accident/medical problem.

Conversely, you could kill someone/be diagnosed with brain cancer tomorrow.

Just a thought that came to me in the shower.

NOT THE SAME
THE GOVT ( federal that is ) passed no law against speeding ,speeding laws are state county or local city mandated
there is a whole lot of differance .

roads are owned and maintained by the collective/PUBLIC and as owners we have a right to make laws to govern how these commodities should be used .

health insurance is to to protect and maintain my body which is owned by me not and not the collective? PUBLIC and i have the freedom of choice as to what i do with it . Telling me what i should or should not have in regards to my personal body is nanyism at its extreme

should the govt then pass laws mandating what we eat as eating the wrong FOOD might hurt us and hurt others when we get medical care for allments other citizens have to pay for ? .
should they coerce us not to participate in dangerous sports or hobbies cus we might HURT ourselves .and be a danger to others , discourage us from from smoking cus its bad for our health .. where should govt interferance .restrictions and mandates into personaL behaviour END

 

[JohnA]

And it would be most helpful if someone would reiterate they argument about why it is okay that a state makes you buy auto insurance but why it is not okay to be forced to buy health insurance.

What I have always heard as a retort to the auto insurance argument is that you have a choice of whether or not to own a car, whereas you don't have a choice to buy health insurance with a mandate. That it is about personal freedom to choose.

Is this correct?

there is NO FEDERAL law that mandates you buy car insurance or any other kind of insurance for that matter .

Its all regulated by the individual states and varies with each one ,as does the coverage you need ,how much the deductable is , the premium is differant according to who is insured and how many of you there are on the policy , you can change it increase /or decrease it at any time if appropiate and of course it only applies if you drive a auto on a PUBLIC road
not same by a long shot .
yes like car insurance health insurance should be * freedom of choice

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is forcing someone to buy health insurance okay or not?

This is how it works;

If you buy or have ins, you're all good.

If you don't, and are too poor or dumb to get it, everyone else pays for you through taxes.

If you don't, but can, you get taxed on doing nothing.


Yes that's right, the government now taxes nothing.

On the short term....it looks like it will be all to attractive for small businesses to drop you and pay you money to hope into an exchange...whereby you become subsidized in several respects by the American Taxpayer.

Just Great !

sorry, but no

My friend runs a club security biz in NYC.

4 years ago he had posters of obama on his wall, this year he is voting for Mitt.

why?

He got a notice that for every full time employee or it's equivalent (2 people working 18.1 hours) he had to buy them ins or be fined $2000 dollars for each equivalent.

He's probably going to have to close, since he can't afford either, and he can't pass it on and still get work.

 

[francoHFW]

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

 

[francoHFW]

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

 

[Chris]

The mandate is a Republican idea from 1993.

Medicare for all would be better.

 

[California Girl]

I may have to amend my no.

Is it okay for the government to force you not to speed?

I mean, speeding itself hurts no one at the time you get the ticket...the penalty is designed to modify the drivers habits to supposedly lessen the chance of future danger to himself and others.

Is coercing people into buying health insurance the same, or different?

You can see how buying health insurance is similar...not having it could certainly hurt you, and it could also hurt others when you received services you couldn't pay for.

Like speeding, you could go for a long time...perhaps indefinitely without ever causing/having an accident/medical problem.

Conversely, you could kill someone/be diagnosed with brain cancer tomorrow.

Just a thought that came to me in the shower.

The difference being that you are the individual who makes the decision about speeding. Exactly how does one make a decision whether one is born or not? The reality is that no one can decide not to be born... once you're born, you have no choice other than the choice that the government gives you... that ain't freedom.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

They have to borrow just to keep it going.

You may want to do some google research on that.

 

[tonystewart1]

And it would be most helpful if someone would reiterate they argument about why it is okay that a state makes you buy auto insurance but why it is not okay to be forced to buy health insurance.

What I have always heard as a retort to the auto insurance argument is that you have a choice of whether or not to own a car, whereas you don't have a choice to buy health insurance with a mandate. That it is about personal freedom to choose.

Is this correct?

The federal govt does not have the authority under the constitution to force me to buy anything. The states on the other hand have that authority.

This country fought a war once over states rights and do not beileve for a second it could not happen again. At this point I would fully support WV leaving the union.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no mandate...only a tax.

No different than giving a tax break for buying solar panels or a hybrid.

You don't get penalized for not buying a solar panel.

Your analogy would only work if the government gave us tax credits for having insurance.

 

[Skull Pilot]

One thing that no one is mentioning here is that this so called tax that's not really a tax actually gives the senate more power.

All taxes originate in the house ways and means committee then are sent to the house first and then the senate.

The Obamatax originated in the senate and then went to the house completely bypassing the ways and means committee.

It's ass backwards but then again it's Obama

Maybe this procedural error can be used to kill the mandate?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is forcing someone to buy health insurance okay or not?

The government has long been doing the exact same thing in effect.

Suppose they raised everyones taxes then said you can avoid those taxes by buying a widget?

Is that unconstitutional or a violation of your individual rights? No, unless you are going to argue that either taxes or tax deductions are somehow unconstitutional.

What the Obamacare lawyers tried to argue was that the Commerce Clause authorized laws targetting purchases with no restriction like any other law. So, they could toss you in jail, take you house, suspend various licenses, etc had they wanted to as a penalty for not buying insurance. And that is why it was struck down.

But a fine is simply another form of taxation, like traffic fines are simply another means of suplying funds to the local town or county. Those fines are revenue and they need cops to hand out tickets. (Wonder what they will do when automated cars start to dominate the roads?)

So the fine is constitutional, but the Individual Mandate in regards to any other form of coersion or penalty is unconstitutional.

Roberts did us all a huge favor with his meticulously honest decision. He split hairs, but did so acurately and constitutionally.

He also drove a stake through the heart of Congress wtholding funds if states dont do as Congress commands them to; an unanticipated freebee that will have far more pro-freedom implications down the road than all the rest of it.