Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[Ravi]

So I guess the court ruling on Obamacare will kill privitization of SS as well then.

I guess Medicare is also unconstitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

If some asshole from your state goes to Texas and goes to the emergency room, Texas taxpayers get screwed.

What's the problem?

Awesome! Thanks for backing up my point so eloquently!

Your point is as sharp as a bowling ball.

More insults that are bereft of anything resembling an actual argument. Brilliant!

 

[manifold]

Awesome! Thanks for backing up my point so eloquently!

Your point is as sharp as a bowling ball.

More insults that are bereft of anything resembling an actual argument. Brilliant!

Arguments are not required to refute horseshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Manifold now:

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.

Manifold 2 years ago:

"But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal...."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1701167-post1.html

Let's set up a Manifold vs. Manifold debate!!!! If we can get those two posters to agree to it.

lol

 

[manifold]

Sometimes I learn.

I guess that's a foreign concept to you.

 

[Seawytch]

Your point is as sharp as a bowling ball.

More insults that are bereft of anything resembling an actual argument. Brilliant!

Arguments are not required to refute horseshit.

Now you're out of bullets and just throwing the gun. How sad...

 

[manifold]

More insults that are bereft of anything resembling an actual argument. Brilliant!

Arguments are not required to refute horseshit.

Now you're out of bullets and just throwing the gun. How sad...

Interesting that you would use such a violent analogy.

Hypocrite much?

 

[Seawytch]

Arguments are not required to refute horseshit.

Now you're out of bullets and just throwing the gun. How sad...

Interesting that you would use such a violent analogy.

Hypocrite much?

How is my statement hypocritical?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The mandate is not a civil rights infringement.

Funny you say that now, trying to argue against my point. Which was actually more a question than a point.

Why then did you thank Modbert for saying this?

The right way is to argue that it violates someone's civil liberties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm still looking for clear explanation as to how the mandate can be a civil rights violation at the federal level,

but not at the state level.

Can anyone give me some examples of where states are allowed to pass laws that violate federally protected civil rights???

 

[manifold]

The mandate is not a civil rights infringement.

Funny you say that now, trying to argue against my point. Which was actually more a question than a point.

Why then did you thank Modbert for saying this?

The right way is to argue that it violates someone's civil liberties.

Academically, I lean toward agreeing that it's a civil rights violation. However, according to long established precedent, it is not. If the Supreme Court were to rule that it's a civil rights violation, I would cheer them for it, but I don't think that's going to happen. If they rule against it at all, it will more likely be on the grounds that Congress has overstepped it's authority.

 

[manifold]

I'm still looking for clear explanation as to how the mandate can be a civil rights violation at the federal level,

but not at the state level.

Can anyone give me some examples of where states are allowed to pass laws that violate federally protected civil rights???

You are correct that a civil rights violation is a violation at any government level. But for some strange reason you refuse to consider other grounds upon which the mandate may be deemed unconstitutional, i.e. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact such a mandate.

 

[manifold]

The more I think about it, perhaps it is a straight up civil rights violation (as well as Romneycare in MA).

Sure there are existing examples of states imposing other mandates, such as seat-belt laws and auto insurance. However, theoretically at least, those mandates can be avoided by not using an automobile. The Obamacare and Romneycare mandates cannot be avoided while remaining a resident. These mandates apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being. hmmm...

 

[manifold]

Honestly, if it were up to me I'd just expand medicaid to cover those who can't afford private insurance and call it a day. If that makes me a socialist so be it.

 

[Ravi]

The more I think about it, perhaps it is a straight up civil rights violation (as well as Romneycare in MA).

Sure there are existing examples of states imposing other mandates, such as seat-belt laws and auto insurance. However, theoretically at least, those mandates can be avoided by not using an automobile. The Obamacare and Romneycare mandates cannot be avoided while remaining a resident. These mandates apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being. hmmm...

Sure, you can avoid it by not being employed.

Isn't it the law of the land that hospitals must treat patients for emergency care?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, you can avoid it by not being employed.

That ranks up in the top three most idiotic liberal arguments of all time. Next you'll tell us you can avoid taxes on food by not eating.

Isn't it the law of the land that hospitals must treat patients for emergency care?

I'll bet you imagine that's relevant somehow.

 

[Ravi]

Sure, you can avoid it by not being employed.

That ranks up in the top three most idiotic liberal arguments of all time. Next you'll tell us you can avoid taxes on food by not eating.

Isn't it the law of the land that hospitals must treat patients for emergency care?

I'll bet you imagine that's relevant somehow.

It's very relevant.

 

[bripat9643]

Isn't it the law of the land that hospitals must treat patients for emergency care?

I'll bet you imagine that's relevant somehow.

It's very relevant.

How?

 

[Ravi]

I'll bet you imagine that's relevant somehow.

It's very relevant.

How?

Because taxpayers pay for the uninsured. Therefore there is nothing constitutional against imposing a tax penalty on the uninsured to pay back the taxpayers.

And my other point was just as valid as manifold's. You can choose to go through life without a car and you can choose to go through life without a job. Be a shareholder. Play the market, etc.

 

[bripat9643]

It's very relevant.

How?

Because taxpayers pay for the uninsured. Therefore there is nothing constitutional against imposing a tax penalty on the uninsured to pay back the taxpayers.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The taxpayers pay for everything. There is nothing in the Constitution that says government can coerce people because the government spends money on them. The government pays for grandma's and grandpa's retirement. Does that give the government the authority to force them into a nursing home? Nope.

And my other point was just as valid as manifold's. You can choose to go through life without a car and you can choose to go through life without a job. Be a shareholder. Play the market, etc.

Yes, you can, but when government imposes that "choice" on you, it's not a free choice. It's coercion.

I can hold a gun on you and give a "choice" of handing over all your money or dying. According to you, that's a free choice.

However, that is the liberal conception of freedom: do what the government tells you or die.