Individual mandate in trouble?

[The T]

I hope you're right. They need to shoot this down and go back to the drawing board. I know of no one who is against helping the truly needy in our country and we helped with their healthcare through Medicaid and many states have additional programs.

It feels completely wrong having the government tell you that you have to buy something, at a higher price than you are now, or you will face fines and maybe jail. Obama kept going back and forth on the mandate, saying it's a tax, it's not a tax........ He knows it's unconstitutional and he couldn't spin it to make it look otherwise.

If those liberal judges opt to set a precedent by effectively altering our constitution, kiss the country goodbye. Once they hand power to government to make these kinds of changes in our foundation, it's all down hill.

Indeed. as ObamaCare is written? It is all about nothing but an open door for total control over the private individual. IF the Individual mandate stands? Katy bar the Door. Precident is set, and Government can mandate anything they like.

I think the whole idea of 'health insurance' should be rewritten at it was over 40 years ago, to 'hospitalization' or 'catastrophic health insurance.' Stop the payouts and coverages on things people can afford, such as immunizations, sports and health physicals, eyeglasses, etc. Cover pregnancy and other expensive items. Hospital care in general and expensive out patient care like chemo or dialysis.

The deductibles can pretty much cover what should be covered, say $1k.

Sounds resonable.

 

[The T]

He quite easily explained why: because it is impossible to escape the market for health care. Saying you can "opt out" of health care makes as much sense as saying you can "opt out" of dying.

So why not mandate burial insurance? We're all going to die.

How about food? We all need food... And shelter... We all need shelter............

The Supreme Court's five conservative justices on Tuesday sharply challenged the Obama administration's arguments for the health-care law, with Justice Anthony Kennedy saying the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" for the measure's requirement that people carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

Conservative Justices Challenge Government Over Health Law - WSJ.com

See Food Stamps and HUD...that already happens.

 

[mascale]

Citing several tort precedents--wherein individuals are not compelled to act--then Justice Kennedy questioned government's attorney about whether or not the obligation to purchase an instrument, payment mechanism, was some new government compelled obligation being created.

Government's attorney had opened with the contention that the Affordable Health Care Act was about a payment methodology.

Essentially, "In the Beginning, Insurance created all kinds of Health Care," and so "Insurance" became the issue of contention in the U. S. Supreme Court, 2nd Day deliberations of the Affordable Health Care Act. Rushing into concepts of insurance, then reputationally Conservative justices questioned why payments should be made for services that will never be used, even in the context of services that get used.

Without so-stating, The position of the Administration, in Court, is firstly, that unlike the wide-range of scattered payment forms--leaving many without payment ability, and putting providers at increase risk of being paid at all--then the minimum standards insurance requirement was more like a currency form, available for medical services. Then secondly, the defacto market for the services is universal, lacking only the dejure fact of payment for services.

Again, even a non-payer for services can now rush a payer for services to a provider, in a location, for treatment. The non-payer, following along Justice Kennedy's example, doesn't have to do that. The non-payer can do that, however, and be at peace of mind that at least there is the group of locations and providers already in place.

The matter of paying for services is not raised as an issue. The obligation is pre-existing. Government's contention was even supported--in the transcript of proceedings--on the Conservative side of their bench. This many are paying, that many cannot pay: Was acknowledged.

So Justice Kennedy's pivotal question can be reduced to the matter that there is already a defacto pre-existing obligation: That providers do have a right to payment for services, which is not a new obligation under the Affordable Health Care Act. The defacto sense of assurance that arises from groups of paid providers, mostly just becomes a dejure payment plan for any services, which is all of sudden no longer just a virtual reality. It becomes an affirmation of an obligation already in place, in which even a non-payer might rush a payer off to use.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Blood of many warriors: No longer left in laundry of many squaws--but is sent to hospital or clinic instead!)

 

[Valerie]

So why not mandate burial insurance? We're all going to die.

How about food? We all need food... And shelter... We all need shelter............

The Supreme Court's five conservative justices on Tuesday sharply challenged the Obama administration's arguments for the health-care law, with Justice Anthony Kennedy saying the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" for the measure's requirement that people carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

Conservative Justices Challenge Government Over Health Law - WSJ.com

See Food Stamps and HUD...that already happens.

Yes, as does Medicaid and Medicare...


The analogy is toward the rationale about the "inescapable market"...

 

[Annie]

Citing several tort precedents--wherein individuals are not compelled to act--then Justice Kennedy questioned government's attorney about whether or not the obligation to purchase an instrument, payment mechanism, was some new government compelled obligation being created.

Government's attorney had opened with the contention that the Affordable Health Care Act was about a payment methodology.

Essentially, "In the Beginning, Insurance created all kinds of Health Care," and so "Insurance" became the issue of contention in the U. S. Supreme Court, 2nd Day deliberations of the Affordable Health Care Act. Rushing into concepts of insurance, then reputationally Conservative justices questioned why payments should be made for services that will never be used, even in the context of services that get used.

Without so-stating, The position of the Administration, in Court, is firstly, that unlike the wide-range of scattered payment forms--leaving many without payment ability, and putting providers at increase risk of being paid at all--then the minimum standards insurance requirement was more like a currency form, available for medical services. Then secondly, the defacto market for the services is universal, lacking on the dejure fact of payment for services.

Again, even a non-payer for services can now rush a payer for services to a provider, in a location, for treatment. The non-payer, following along Justice Kennedy's example, doesn't have to do that. The non-payer can do that, however, and be at peace of mind that at least there is the group of locations and providers already in place.

The matter of paying for services is not raised as an issue. The obligation is pre-existing. Government's contention was even supported--in the transcript of proceedings--on the Conservative site of their bench. This many are paying, that many cannot pay: Was acknowledged.

So Justice Kennedy's pivotal question can be reduced to the matter that there is already a defacto pre-existing obligation: That providers do have a right to payment for services, which is not a new obligation under the Affordable Health Care Act. The defacto sense of assurance that arises from groups of paid providers, mostly just becomes a dejure payment plan for any services, which is all of sudden no longer just a virtual reality, It becomes an affirmation of an obligation already in place, in which even a non-payer might rush a payer off to use.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Blood of many warriors: No longer left in laundry of many squaws--but is sent to hospital or clinic instead!)

I can remember my folks talking about my dad's insurance changes back when I was a little kid. Seriously, maybe 5 or 6. My dad saying, "Mary, it's changing, you can take the kids to doctor for shots and physicals for nothing, other than the deductible." Prescripriitions weren't covered then.

When my brother needed stitches, must have been about 6, it was covered. My mom was agog. That wasn't the norm back then. My dad had very good insurance. A precursor for what was to become the norm.

Truth is, they could have paid for the stitches, just like most can today. They did pay for the physicals and such. Prescriptions. Would they have paid $100 for a pill? Don't think so, nor would folks now. The market will meet the demand.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That is bullshit

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

As Sarah would say................WTF?

 

[Conservative]

Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

As Sarah would say................WTF?

And you want to whine about immature behavior from other posters?

Get a life... most of us have them. You should try it. Might lighten you up a bit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

As Sarah would say................WTF?

And you want to whine about immature behavior from other posters?

Get a life... most of us have them. You should try it. Might lighten you up a bit.

The nutter playbook. Find out what makes the opposition tick........what they are really all about........then accuse them of exactly the opposite.

Nicely done, nutter.

 

[Conservative]

Hello! What happened to DTMB and Conservative? Are they having an early supper? I am friggin' waiting for their cute reply to my idiotic and simplistic sources regarding the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

As Sarah would say................WTF?

And you want to whine about immature behavior from other posters?

Get a life... most of us have them. You should try it. Might lighten you up a bit.

The nutter playbook. Find out what makes the opposition tick........what they are really all about........then accuse them of exactly the opposite.

Nicely done, nutter.

yup... you really do take yourself much too seriously.

 

[SniperFire]

He quite easily explained why: because it is impossible to escape the market for health care. Saying you can "opt out" of health care makes as much sense as saying you can "opt out" of dying.

So why not mandate burial insurance? We're all going to die.

So funny you should say that! When I was listening to some of the rationale, I had that very same thought...

And of course, if you happen to be driving down the road and get hurt in a car wreck, then you are going to need a cell phone to call 9-11. Some will die instantly, but saying you can 'opt out ' of a car wreck makes no sense. You will need to call 9-11, so the Federal government is going to have to mandate we all carry cell phones.. Perhaps smartphones with GPS.

 

[Meister]

Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?

You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.


Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this constitutional?

Bitch about the LIBERAL BIAS on the Supreme Court?

Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this unconstitutional?

Ask for a recount?

 

[The T]

Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?

You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.


Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this constitutional?

Bitch about the LIBERAL BIAS on the Supreme Court?

Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this unconstitutional?

Ask for a recount?

Start a petition to have those Justices that voted against it removed? I'm sure we could see another Wisconsin with the Unions leading the charge...

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.

It only passed because Obama manipulated Senator Stupak to vote for it when he was against it....ONLY because Obama PROMISED to remove the part that would force us to pay for abortions! THEN after it was all passed and signed, Obama never fulfilled his promise. Surprise! Surprise! This thing was shoved down our throats, the majority of people screamed that we did not want this. Hell, we didn't even know what was IN IT! Do you always vote for something not even knowing anything about it? Then you're just as stupid.

Where do you come up with this shit?

It's called paying attention to facts. It's usually good to do that if you want any sort of informed opinion in this world.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.

That's the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard in my life. Apparently, you haven't the slightest clue what federal court system is for. Idiot.

Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!

Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?

It's for overturning Unconstitutional laws. You would think anyone familiar with our system would know this.

 

[Conservative]

That's the stupidest reasoning I've ever heard in my life. Apparently, you haven't the slightest clue what federal court system is for. Idiot.

Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!

Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?

It's for overturning Unconstitutional laws. You would think anyone familiar with our system would know this.

LoneMoron thinks that if a law makes it to the President and he signs it, it is automatically Constitutional and the 'will of the people'.

 

[Peach]

Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!

Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?

It's for overturning Unconstitutional laws. You would think anyone familiar with our system would know this.

LoneMoron thinks that if a law makes it to the President and he signs it, it is automatically Constitutional and the 'will of the people'.

I think it'll be a close vote, but may be wrong.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Again:

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

Please. Learn your place.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!

Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?

It's for overturning Unconstitutional laws. You would think anyone familiar with our system would know this.

LoneMoron thinks that if a law makes it to the President and he signs it, it is automatically Constitutional and the 'will of the people'.

Oh! How clever! LoneMoron! You might dispell the commonly held belief that nutters are unable to be funny. But, not with lame shit like that.

For you as well:

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

 

[Avatar4321]

Since when does anyone trust the analysis of conservatives further than they can throw them?

You CONZ are just whistling past the graveyard on this one.


Tell me...what will you do if the court finds this constitutional?

Bitch about the LIBERAL BIAS on the Supreme Court?

Better then trusting narratives from the idiot lefties.

THAN

Idiot.

So someone is an idiot because he typed the wrong letter, but you aren't despite saying incredibly stupid things?