Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[Missourian]

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.

I'll need a link to that, because before I had insurance, when I went to the emergency room, the bill came to me...not Uncle Sam.

And it is my understanding...and correct me if I'm wrong...that if I wouldn't have been able to pay it, the hospital would have sued me, got a judgement against me and garnished my wages to pay that judgement.

And it I had no job, or money, they would have charged it off...not sent it to Uncle Sam for payment...and offset those cost by charging higher rates to their other customers.

Just like if an uninsured motorist hits me...my insurance pays, and it offsets those expenses by charging higher rates to it's own customers in the form of uninsured motorist riders.

Using Obamalogic, we should mandate everyone buy car insurance, whether they need it or not, because some people driving without insurance increases the costs for everyone else.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Guess what? Even if the mandate is found unconstutional by the most bought off court ever, the palan will go ahead, and strangely everyone with a brain will want it anyway. This is total Pub dupe BS. You have NO CLUE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If you don't get it, you pay a tax penalty.

Last time I checked tax penalties were legal.

Are you aware that the one thing that every judge that has ruled on the mandate agrees on is that the penalty is not a tax? Given that simple agreement even among the judges that say the mandate is Constitutional why do you insist on basing your defense of the mandate on the one argument that is flat out wrong?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...e/173434-individual-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I guess Medicare is also unconstitutional.

Probably should be, but we do not live in a perfect world.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Remain Calm. It will ultimately be ruled Unconstitutional for the Very Reasons you sight.

If the SCOTUS were to rule the Mandate Legal, the Government would then have practically unlimited power over us all. Next they could tell us all we have to by a chevy Volt and claim they are doing it to regulate Commerce. What we eat, how much we drive, how much Electricity we use, Where and when we take a shit, and ultimately how many kids we have (after all kids pump out CO2 with every breath) Virtually anything can be done and sighted as regulating Commerce, or Promoting the General Welfare.

That is the precedent they would set if they made it legal. Not going to happen with this SCOTUS, However I am sure there are libs out there scheming on how they can bring down one of the Conservative Justices so Obama can appoint another lib and then the libs win, and government is handed nearly unlimited power over us all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Guess what? Even if the mandate is found unconstutional by the most bought off court ever, the palan will go ahead, and strangely everyone with a brain will want it anyway. This is total Pub dupe BS. You have NO CLUE.

This is actually an excellent point. It is quite common for the Court to strike down a law or a provision of a law only to have Congress write the ‘offensive’ section out of the bill and reauthorize the legislation, now immune to judicial review.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

I guess Medicare is also unconstitutional.

Clearly you do not even understand what you are talking about.

Medicare is a tax, It is not a mandate the forces you to buy a good or service just because you are alive.

Is everything above your head?

What's next are you going to talk about Car Insurance? Which of course we do not have to buy unless we want to drive a car. Not to mention the fact that the Federal Government is not the ones who mandate Car Insurance, States do.

I mean really Ravi, you really need to educate yourself. You sound like a fool grasping at straws trying to Defend Obama's Mandate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

The funny thing about laws is that no one cares what they look like to some random person in NY, what they care about is what they actually say. That explains why, since the law is specifically written to make the penalty not a tax, it is not a tax.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...e/173434-individual-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

That pretty much what it is. It's a tax increase/incentive to bailout the insurance industry. Blatant corporatist sellout.

This is a very odd take. Something's amiss here. Most on the right were against hc, most on the left were for hc. How would the left be for something that is a corporate sellout?

Because the left, like the right, are bought and paid for by corporations and big business.

 

[Charles_Main]

strangely everyone with a brain will want it anyway.

Funny because poll after poll shows the Majority of Americans want the entire law Repealed.

This is actually an excellent point. It is quite common for the Court to strike down a law or a provision of a law only to have Congress write the ‘offensive’ section out of the bill and reauthorize the legislation, now immune to judicial review.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on it just before the Election. Most Legal Experts Believe the Mandate will be struck down (as have a few courts already). Then if the Republicans happen to Retain the house and take the Senate and WH,(which will be even more likely if the Nation Watches Obama Health Care law struck down in the courts on the eve of the Election) Then the Entire law can then be repealed by law, and we can start over with Real Health Care reform, and not this monstrous Disaster of a plan the Democrats tossed together behind closed doors.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem here is many perceive Commerce Clause regulatory activity as some sort of violation of ‘individual rights,’ such as the ‘right’ to own your own business and run it as you see fit, to sell what you want to whomever, wherever, free from government regulation – even if what you’re dong is harmful to one's employees, the consumer, or the market overall.

Needless to say this is an incorrect perception, the Court has been consistent with regard to its interpretation of the Clause, giving Congress broad authority to regulate markets.

In US v Darby (1941), where the Court upheld Federal law prohibiting unfair wage and labor practices, the majority ruled that Congress has the authority to, under the Commerce Clause, regulate activities that ‘it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals or welfare, even though the state has not sought to regulate their use.’

Further, ‘[t]he motive and purpose of a regulation of interstate commerce are matters for the legislative judgment upon the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction, and over which the courts are given no control.’

The issue of Congress’ improper use of the Commerce Clause was addressed in United States v. Lopez (1995), where the Court held that the Commerce Clause may not be used by Congress to enact ‘police powers,’ this was reaffirmed in US v Morrison (2000) with regard to punitive civil damages.

And since Lopez/Morrison doesn’t apply to the ACA, as its ‘penalty’ is neither criminal nor punitive (indeed, the Act itself prohibits the IRS from placing liens on property, for example), it is indeed Constitutional. The actual ‘penalty,’ therefore, should one ultimately refuse to purchase health insurance, would be the possible exclusion from purchasing insurance at a later date should it be needed.

Look up US v Lopez.

Better yet, just read it.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

Congress does not have unlimited power under the Commerce Clause.

By the way, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd like to know how some of you people think medical services are paid for for people with no health insurance. Anybody that feels bad enough will go to an emergency room to be treated. Treatment often includes surgery, drugs, xrays, radiology, blood, doctors, nurses, room and board, and so on. Do you know who pays for it???

I'd like to know why you think that is germane to the discussion.

 

[Rinata]

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Yeah. I love it. Insurance is too expensive, and as a result lots of people are uninsured. So the solution is to force everyone to buy it. If this is the logic we're to govern with, why not just pass a law banning illness?

*also, before some of you starting writing the legislation, I was just kidding.

Why don't you answer my question instead of running amok. Who pays for health care of people that have no insurance???

 

[dblack]

Why don't you answer my question instead of running amok. Who pays for health care of people that have no insurance???

Oh...I thought it was a rhetorical question. I didn't know you were actually in need of an answer. So, to answer your question:

In general, whomever wants to. In certain, narrow cases dictated by EMTALA (I assume this is what you're referring to) hospitals are required to provide emergency services to patients without proof of financial means.

 

[Rinata]

Why don't you answer my question instead of running amok. Who pays for health care of people that have no insurance???

Oh...I thought it was a rhetorical question. I didn't know you were actually in need of an answer. So, to answer your question:

In general, whomever wants to. In certain, narrow cases dictated by EMTALA (I assume this is what you're referring to) hospitals are required to provide emergency services to patients without proof of financial means.

Whomever wants to?? Well, your state sponsored plan or COBRA might cover all of the bill or they might approve just a portion. You are making it sound as though the non-insured have nothing to worry about. Well, they have plenty to worry about. And so do we because we are the ones that pay when the patient is all well and just takes off. Or when part of their bill is paid, but they don't have the money for the rest.

 

[Rinata]

I'd like to know how some of you people think medical services are paid for for people with no health insurance. Anybody that feels bad enough will go to an emergency room to be treated. Treatment often includes surgery, drugs, xrays, radiology, blood, doctors, nurses, room and board, and so on. Do you know who pays for it???

I'd like to know why you think that is germane to the discussion.

Because I think Obama did a good thing to mandate that everybody has health insurance.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Go ahead, make your mandates legal ,see what happens. I dare you.

 

[dblack]

You are making it sound as though the non-insured have nothing to worry about.

That's certainly not my intent. But the standard low-deductible, high-premium insurance plan isn't the only way to deal with health care costs. In fact, it's proven to be an extraordinarily bad way. The last thing we need is to have it cemented in place by state mandate.

 

[Ravi]

It might benefit insurance companies, just as seat belt laws benefit seat belt companies. This remains to be seen.

It's a little hard to believe you typed that with a straight face. We're giving them captive customers - they can't lose. They'll essentially be public utilities and no matter what their costs turn out to be, they'll simply make their case to regulators and raise their rates to make a guaranteed profit. With the mandate they've essentially removed all risk from their business model. There isn't a CEO alive who wouldn't leap at such an opportunity.

Thanks for ignoring my point and only responding to the lead in.

 

[Ravi]

Geez, that is just great. Those who have been down on their luck since Obama took office had better be ready for a double whammy.

Immie

No, those below the poverty line or hovering thereabouts are excused.

Well, since much of the reason for some of us "hovering thereabouts" is because of the job market and the poor excuses of the Obama Administration and their unwillingness to better the situation with regards to corporate hiring the double whammy still applies because if I can't find a job I'm still hit by the double whammy.

Now whether or not the initial cause of the hiring problems lies in the lap of Obama is immaterial. The fact is that his administration is hindering jobs growth through an anti-business attitude and legislation such as the one that we are currently discussing.

Immie

You don't have to get insurance if you're unemployed, Immie.

Wait, I thought this was pro-business, make up your mind.