So..."Prove you're insured" is OK; "Prove you're a citizen" is NOT OK???

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's OK to make it a law that one must PROVE he has health insurance.

Actually, nothing was compelling one to ‘prove’ anything, since there was no potential criminal or civil penalty involved to begin with, the ‘requirement’ was in essence a bluff.

But it's not OK to ask that he prove he is a US citizen when voting?

Correct, because there is a potential violation of a fundamental right, in this case voting. There is also no evidence that fraud by identification is of such magnitude as to justify the potential violation of that fundamental right.

It's OK to make a person who an identification to practice their lawful right of buying a gun. But it's NOT OK to make that same person show identification when practicing their lawful right of voting?

To be consistent, one shouldn’t be compelled to provide ID for either, as both are a potential preemption of a Constitutional right. Your issue should be with those who advocate providing an ID for a gun purchase, however, not for voting.

There are also different standards of judicial review with regard to both issues, as voting is a fundamental right, owning a gun is not. The government could also make a compelling case and provide evidence in support of requiring ID for gun purchases, which is not the case with voter ID requirements.

It's OK to say a person has the absolute right to have a baby burned by acid inside their womb, or have it killed with a sharp instrument, because it's "their body".

There is no ‘right’ to an abortion, there is a right to privacy, however. And in that context laws banning abortion violate that right.

BUT if that person decides to leave that body uninsured, because maybe they dont want to use any doctors...ever...because it's "their body"......then the gov't will fine them?

In which case one can refuse to pay the fine.

Consequently one of two things will happen: the person who refuses to purchase insurance will have his income tax refund garnished, or, if no refund is forthcoming, the IRS could file a civil suit. The latter won’t occur, however, as the cost of a suit would cost the government more than what it would realize in fines.

It's OK to assume a white person strolling through an all-black neighborhood, say, bad parts of Compton, CA, is gonna get extra attention from cops, and possibly be harmed by the locals simply for being different (heck, it's glorified by "Gangland").........but it is the crime of the century if a black person is strolling through an all-white neighborhood, say ritzy Boca Raton gated community, and that person recieves extra attention from cops and locals??????

You seem to be implying that blacks may kill whites with impunity but not the other way around.

That’s not the case, of course, but this seems more an example of conservative paranoid delusion rather than an accurate comprehension of reality.

Just trying to figure out how some ends meet here.

Judging from the above, you’re got a long way to go.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"In which case one can refuse to pay the fine.

Consequently one of two things will happen: the person who refuses to purchase insurance will have his income tax refund garnished, or, if no refund is forthcoming, the IRS could file a civil suit. The latter won’t occur, however, as the cost of a suit would cost the government more than what it would realize in fines."


The latter will occur. The IRS sues people everyday to recover penalties and fines. The mandate will more than likely be struck down though.

 

[Greenbeard]

So if I get this liberal madness correctly..........

The feds will mandate that insurance companies verify citizenship before selling them insurance, while the feds then sue states for wanting to verify citizenship of drivers on their roads?

No, you don't get get it correctly. Verifying citizenship in the exchanges is a federal responsibility. See the numerous threads over the past few days expressing outrage that the IRS is spending money to create the IT infrastructure needed to do that.

The suit you're referring to, if I recall correctly, involves the feds pushing back on a state for attempting to usurp federal powers. Apples ≠ oranges.

 

[bucs90]

So if I get this liberal madness correctly..........

The feds will mandate that insurance companies verify citizenship before selling them insurance, while the feds then sue states for wanting to verify citizenship of drivers on their roads?

No, you don't get get it correctly. Verifying citizenship in the exchanges is a federal responsibility. See the numerous threads over the past few days expressing outrage that the IRS is spending money to create the IT infrastructure needed to do that.

The suit you're referring to, if I recall correctly, involves the feds pushing back on a state for attempting to usurp federal powers. Apples ≠ oranges.

So the federal government is going to find a way to check EVERY human being living inside our borders for proof of citizenship before they are then mandated to buy insurance?

The lawsuit is against AZ, SC and several other states who are asking people to GASP show an ID to vote. Some, like liberals here, say that is wrong because it could block the practice of a right (to vote). Then, I ask, how can a person be required to show an ID to buy a gun, also the practice of a right? I say BOTH should require an ID. Anyone with common sense would see the logic in requiring a single person to show a single ID card to buy a gun, or vote.

 

[bucs90]

To be consistent, one shouldn’t be compelled to provide ID for either, as both are a potential preemption of a Constitutional right. Your issue should be with those who advocate providing an ID for a gun purchase, however, not for voting.

There are also different standards of judicial review with regard to both issues, as voting is a fundamental right, owning a gun is not. The government could also make a compelling case and provide evidence in support of requiring ID for gun purchases, which is not the case with voter ID requirements.

So, you think I should advocate people being able to buy guns WITHOUT an ID???? Wow, liberalism never ceases to amaze me. I will not be advocating that, as arguing both buying a gun, or voting, WITHOUT an ID is fucking retarded.

Buying a gun is NOT a fundamental right? Hmmmm. The Supreme Court, AND the "Bill of Rights" would disagree.

If they can make an argument for forcing ID to buy guns (common sense) one can make an argument for requiring ID to vote. Such as.......without doing so, how can we be sure 1 person only votes 1 time????

Liberalism always fails to be consistent. As usual.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I just had a little brain flexing going on, and had some thoughts on the issues in politics, particularly immigration, healthcare, and of course with the non-sense in Florida, gun laws.

So....

- It's OK to make it a law that one must PROVE he has health insurance. But it's not OK to ask that he prove he is a US citizen when voting?

- It's OK to make a person who an identification to practice their lawful right of buying a gun. But it's NOT OK to make that same person show identification when practicing their lawful right of voting?

- It's OK to say a person has the absolute right to have a baby burned by acid inside their womb, or have it killed with a sharp instrument, because it's "their body". BUT if that person decides to leave that body uninsured, because maybe they dont want to use any doctors...ever...because it's "their body"......then the gov't will fine them?

- It's OK to assume a white person strolling through an all-black neighborhood, say, bad parts of Compton, CA, is gonna get extra attention from cops, and possibly be harmed by the locals simply for being different (heck, it's glorified by "Gangland").........but it is the crime of the century if a black person is strolling through an all-white neighborhood, say ritzy Boca Raton gated community, and that person recieves extra attention from cops and locals??????

Just trying to figure out how some ends meet here.

It is a libtard thing, you can never understand it, they don't understand either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, we're trying to make sense of the retarded left wing logic. Saying no government official can ever DARE ask me to show my proof of citizenship, or ID, when stopped by a cop or trying to vote, but then saying we MUST show proof that our bodies are insured and show an ID to buy a weapon???\

Citizenship has to be verified before one buys a private insurance plan in a health insurance exchange (even if one is not getting any sort of tax subsidy). So who is it that's saying proof of citizenship can never be requested by anyone?

Any thing else the statists will demand by way of information about each citizen?

Oh, yes....


1. The feds will require the ‘state’ exchanges to perform a dozen or so “minimum functions.”
Section 1311(d)(4) of the PPACA requires all Exchanges to perform certain minimum functions:

Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange,
Operate a toll-free hotline for consumer assistance,
Maintain a website providing standardized comparative information on health plans,
Assign price and quality ratings to plans,
Present plan benefit options in a standardized format,
Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs,
Provide an electronic calculator to allow applicants to determine the actual cost of coverage, taking into account premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,
Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement,
Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and
Establish a Navigator program that provides grants to entities to conduct outreach and education, as well as assist consumers in enrolling in qualified health plans through the Exchange.

a. While states cannot accept any insurers who offer policies that provide fewer benefits than those ordered by the federal government, they may offer plans that include more benefits. This, of course, obviates the kind of competition that lowers cost or favors the consumer. The state must then subsidize the additional benefits, which requires extensive invasion of privacy of the individual.

b. While mandating additional benefits, the PPACA imposes restrictions that one would expect in a free market system, i.e., more benefits results in higher premiums. On the contrary, this law gives the secretary of HHS the ability to remove the company if the increases are 10% or more.
Questions and Answers: Keeping the Health Plan You Have: The Affordable Care Act and ?Grandfathered? Health Plans

2. One would do well to look beyond the word salad in section 1311 (d)(4), and carefully consider the machinations necessary to ascertain “Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs” , to “Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement, “ and to “Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,” and “Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange.”

a. They will have to check the incomes of people applying for health insurance subsidies to make sure they qualify…and stay qualified. Every month. Every family member.

b. The state exchanges will be tasked with making sure that all ‘private plans’ meet the new expanded federal mandates and standards. They must have, as well, enough, and the right mix of doctors.

c. Exactly what the ‘private plans’ in the exchanges must and will do is difficult to pin down, as the PPACA has built in the right of the secretary of HHS to change, add delete requirements at will. Neither the ‘private plan’ nor the consumer has any rights here. The secretary has sweeping powers to decide which insurers will be allowed to sell policies in the exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(e) (1)(B)
“Why Obamacare is Wrong for America,” Turner, Capreta, Miller and Moffit.

 

[grunt11b]

Since you people think the insurance law is unconstitutional, you're making an odd argument.

"You People"?. Racist!

 

[grunt11b]

Since you people think the insurance law is unconstitutional, you're making an odd argument.

No, we're trying to make sense of the retarded left wing logic. Saying no government official can ever DARE ask me to show my proof of citizenship, or ID, when stopped by a cop or trying to vote, but then saying we MUST show proof that our bodies are insured and show an ID to buy a weapon???

We aren't trying to demand to buy guns without showing an ID. Thats common sense. Just like saying we should have an ID to vote.

Voter ID laws prevent left wing fraud like we seen in 2008, the left cannot afford not to be able to do it again.

 

[bucs90]

Jesus H. Christ, this Obamacare bill gets more dictator-like as we read more into it. Like Pelosi said, "We gotta pass the bill to find out whats in it!!!"

Yes, of course. Kinda like "Just take this pill. What is it? WELL......silly, you gotta take the pill to find out what it is!!!"

 

[The T]

Jesus H. Christ, this Obamacare bill gets more dictator-like as we read more into it. Like Pelosi said, "We gotta pass the bill to find out whats in it!!!"

Yes, of course. Kinda like "Just take this pill. What is it? WELL......silly, you gotta take the pill to find out what it is!!!"

And IF it stays? Just think how prophetic you will be with IPAB and 'taking pills'?

 

[bucs90]

Jesus H. Christ, this Obamacare bill gets more dictator-like as we read more into it. Like Pelosi said, "We gotta pass the bill to find out whats in it!!!"

Yes, of course. Kinda like "Just take this pill. What is it? WELL......silly, you gotta take the pill to find out what it is!!!"

And IF it stays? Just think how prophetic you will be with IPAB and 'taking pills'?

Yep. Seems logical, right? In fact....there is a hole in my backyard. It's about 6 inches in diameter, angled on the side of a small hill, very very deep and dark as I can't see the bottom. I wonder whats "in it"?? Hmmmm. Well, my only choice is to just shove my hand way down deep in there and find out, right?

 

[Greenbeard]

So the federal government is going to find a way to check EVERY human being living inside our borders for proof of citizenship before they are then mandated to buy insurance?

If they're shopping for health insurance through an exchange web portal, yes. It'll be part of the same process that verifies eligibility for Medicaid or for private insurance plan subsidies in real-time. When you first buy a plan (or enroll in Medicaid) through an exchange your citizenship has to be verified, and then it--and your income, if you're requesting any kind of public assistance--has to be verified again each year during the annual renewal process.

 

[g5000]

I just had a little brain flexing going on...

- It's OK to make it a law that one must PROVE he has health insurance. But it's not OK to ask that he prove he is a US citizen when voting?

You have to prove you are a US citizen when registering to vote.

Flex harder.

 

[bucs90]

I just had a little brain flexing going on...

- It's OK to make it a law that one must PROVE he has health insurance. But it's not OK to ask that he prove he is a US citizen when voting?

You have to prove you are a US citizen when registering to vote.

Flex harder.

Then why is showing an ID to vote such a big fucking deal to liberals? And why are Dems so worried about gaining the "illegal alien vote"?

 

[bucs90]

So the federal government is going to find a way to check EVERY human being living inside our borders for proof of citizenship before they are then mandated to buy insurance?

If they're shopping for health insurance through an exchange web portal, yes. It'll be part of the same process that verifies eligibility for Medicaid or for private insurance plan subsidies in real-time. When you first buy a plan (or enroll in Medicaid) through an exchange your citizenship has to be verified, and then it--and your income, if you're requesting any kind of public assistance--has to be verified again each year during the annual renewal process.

Oh, wow, ok. I'm sure the government will be very efficient with that entire deal

So, the states can't ask a citizen to "show me your papers"..........but the feds now can? They say it is racist for a state to demand this. But the Feds can and it's ok? Is Obamacare racist since it will require us to "show our papers"???????

 

[Greenbeard]

So, the states can't ask a citizen to "show me your papers"..........but the feds now can? They say it is racist for a state to demand this. But the Feds can and it's ok? Is Obamacare racist since it will require us to "show our papers"???????

If you're asking whether the law's prohibition on illegals buying health insurance entirely with their own money in exchanges is a dumb provision and bad policy, the answer is an unequivocal yes. And yeah, that was inserted to appease the xenophobes.

 

[bucs90]

So, the states can't ask a citizen to "show me your papers"..........but the feds now can? They say it is racist for a state to demand this. But the Feds can and it's ok? Is Obamacare racist since it will require us to "show our papers"???????

If you're asking whether the law's prohibition on illegals buying health insurance entirely with their own money in exchanges is a dumb provision and bad policy, the answer is an unequivocal yes. And yeah, that was inserted to appease the xenophobes.

So..........under Obamacare, illegal aliens will still be able to show up in an ER, with a major emergency, or a sore throat, and still be entitled to treatment? And they can present an old worn out Mexican ID, which probably isn't even who they are, get treatment, have the name on the foreign ID billed, and they disappear and leave the bill for us to pay????

So.....how is Obamacare fixing a problem again?

 

[The T]

Jesus H. Christ, this Obamacare bill gets more dictator-like as we read more into it. Like Pelosi said, "We gotta pass the bill to find out whats in it!!!"

Yes, of course. Kinda like "Just take this pill. What is it? WELL......silly, you gotta take the pill to find out what it is!!!"

And IF it stays? Just think how prophetic you will be with IPAB and 'taking pills'?

Yep. Seems logical, right? In fact....there is a hole in my backyard. It's about 6 inches in diameter, angled on the side of a small hill, very very deep and dark as I can't see the bottom. I wonder whats "in it"?? Hmmmm. Well, my only choice is to just shove my hand way down deep in there and find out, right?

Just as Pelosi is asking the rest of us to do....she like Obama thinks we're stupid and don't see what they're doing...and The Democrats didn't write it...that's why Pelosi said what she did.