Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[manifold]

I thought this was obvious, but some apparently don't realize that a federal mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is not only precedent setting, but completely blows out of the water the long established precedent that only state and local governments have that type of authority. You might think that it's no big deal to give this authority to the federal government too, but that's because you're stupid.

 

[elvis]

stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Seawytch]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

 

[manifold]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[Modbert]

Arguing that it's precedent is the wrong way to go about this. After all, Pace v Alabama, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Hirabayashi v. United States were all once precedent at one point or another.

The right way is to argue that it violates someone's civil liberties. After all, would those who support the Federal mandate support a mandate that all U.S citizens must own a firearm?

The other worst thing about the mandate is it forces people to buy private for-profit insurance. The implications of that are a pandora's box in of itself.

 

[Modbert]

On another note, I always find it completely laughable when someone says the mandate is just another evil way by Liberals to try and control everything.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama was opposed to the individual mandate. He stated the following in a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show about his divergent views with Hillary Clinton:

"Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

While the new healthcare bill does some good things (getting rid of pre-existing conditions for starters), the ones who are probably most happy with the bill at the end of the day are the Health insurance companies.

 

[manifold]

Arguing that it's precedent is the wrong way to go about this. After all, Pace v Alabama, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Hirabayashi v. United States were all once precedent at one point or another.

The right way is to argue that it violates someone's civil liberties. After all, would those who support the Federal mandate support a mandate that all U.S citizens must own a firearm?

The other worst thing about the mandate is it forces people to buy private for-profit insurance. The implications of that are a pandora's box in of itself.

I agree, and don't believe our points are conflicting at all.

 

[Immanuel]

Arguing that it's precedent is the wrong way to go about this. After all, Pace v Alabama, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Hirabayashi v. United States were all once precedent at one point or another.

The right way is to argue that it violates someone's civil liberties. After all, would those who support the Federal mandate support a mandate that all U.S citizens must own a firearm?

The other worst thing about the mandate is it forces people to buy private for-profit insurance. The implications of that are a pandora's box in of itself.

You should be happy, Obama, Reid and Pelosi wanted you to be forced to by government aka public insurance.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

You should be happy, Obama, Reid and Pelosi wanted you to be forced to by government aka public insurance.

Immie

What do you mean? Are you referring to the Public option that Candidate Obama supported but President Obama did not even put on the table during the health care debate?

I support a public option. It works for many countries, including the vast majority of those countries left with AAA ratings.

 

[del]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

give her time.

she'll exceed your expectations presently

 

[Immanuel]

You should be happy, Obama, Reid and Pelosi wanted you to be forced to by government aka public insurance.

Immie

What do you mean? Are you referring to the Public option that Candidate Obama supported but President Obama did not even put on the table during the health care debate?

I support a public option. It works for many countries, including the vast majority of those countries left with AAA ratings.

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Last time i got hurt i paid, how dare anyone suggest because i got hurt you paid, damn you to

hell if you think i wont fight any mandate, freedom isnt free, i swear to God as my witness

those that died for my freedoms will not have died in vain!

 

[del]

Last time i got hurt i paid, how dare anyone suggest because i got hurt you paid, damn you to

hell if you think i wont fight any mandate, freedom isnt free, i swear to God as my witness

those that died for my freedoms will not have died in vain!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B65mtE2TN1w]LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS SGT. HULKA STRIPES - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BoycottTheday]

Take my freedoms at your own peril.

 

[Immanuel]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

I'm sorry, you seem to be confused. The proposal for the public option was a death nail for the private insurance industry. It was set up to either make those private companies puppets of the US Government or put them out of business within five years.

Private insurance companies were to be dictated to as to what they could offer in coverage and the prices they could charge. That made them puppets of the U.S. Government and left us with only the option of which company we wanted to pay our doctors.

Option my ass.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

I'm sorry, you seem to be confused. The proposal for the public option was a death nail for the private insurance industry. It was set up to either make those private companies puppets of the US Government or put them out of business within five years.

Private insurance companies were to be dictated to as to what they could offer in coverage and the prices they could charge. That made them puppets of the U.S. Government and left us with only the option of which company we wanted to pay our doctors.

Option my ass.

Immie

There was never a moment when the proposal of a public option was taken seriously in the healthcare reform debate in Washington. Other countries have a situation where some form of the public option and private insurance coexist.

But it looks like we may have to agree to disagree on this one. No need to derail Mani's thread.

 

[BoycottTheday]

I dont see how what other countries do is germane to this debate.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

One small step for man, one giant step toward "Soylent Green".
Obamacare, the Government responsible for your personal support, maintenance, and upkeep.
In a situation of fiscal crisis, the first question for the government bean counters is "Where can we cut our costs?"
Germany instituted a system of Universal Healthcare at the time the German nation was formed out of the coalesced city states in the late 1800's. Hitler began as simply a pragmatic politician, and an outsider at that, the leader of a country suffering under an enormous debt load, the reparations imposed by the Versaille Treaty, while being immersed under a tidal wave of unemployment subsequent to the world wide economic downturn. "How can I cut Germany's costs and have enough money left to put the people to work?"
Well Boss, there's the invalid, the infirm, the institutionalized, the gravely handicapped WWI Veterans.
Starting down that slope is the easy part..........

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why would a state have the power if the federal government doesn't? If it's unconstitutional, how does become constitutional at the state level?