So the republican solution to our healthcare system is as little government as possible right?

[Staidhup]

I believe the court ruled that it was a tax, which congress is empowered to levy, not under the general welfare clause, which if I am not mistaken was a clause designed to encompass national security, safety, freedom, and unrestricted commerce between states.

 

[RealDave]

Providing healthcare to people will cause Congress, SCOTUS and others to go to hell?

Did your jesus tell you this when he passed over the meek while threading the rich thru the eye of a needle?

I have no use for Jesus or any other organized religious icon. I don’t believe in organized religion.

Yes, I do believe that the immoral concept of stealing money from people to pay other people’s healthcare bills damages the Soul of everyone involved. The whole concept is patently immoral.

So, you don't buy insurance.

 

[otto105]

I believe the court ruled that it was a tax, which congress is empowered to levy, not under the general welfare clause, which if I am not mistaken was a clause designed to encompass national security, safety, freedom, and unrestricted commerce between states.

You would be wrong.

 

[Staidhup]

The fact remains until such time tort reform is adopted and barriers preventing access to open free market nation wide programs is adopted healthcare insurance will be very expensive. Yes, affordability only applies to those that can afford to pay for it and subsidize everyone else.

 

[Anathema]

So, you don't buy insurance.

Insurance is different. It’s not run by the Government. The Government has NO legitimate power related to medical services or healthcare in any form.

 

[Staidhup]

Otto I Believe you need to read this.


National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius


Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26–28, 2012
Decided June 28, 2012
Full case name National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al.; Florida, et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docket nos. 11-393
11-398
11-400
Citations 567 U.S. 519 (more)
132 S. Ct. 2566; 183 L. Ed. 2d 450; 2012 U.S. LEXIS4876; 80 U.S.L.W. 4579; 2012-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,423; 109 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2563; 53 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1513; 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 480
Argument

• * Anti-Injunction Act
  • Individual Mandate
  • Severability
  • Medicaid Expansion

Prior history Act declared unconstitutional sub. nom. Florida ex rel. Bondi v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, 780 F.Supp.2d 1256 (N.D. Fla.2011); Affirmed and reversed in parts, 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011); Certiorari granted, 565 U.S. ___ (2011)
Holding
(1) The Tax Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s labeling of the individual mandate as a "penalty" instead of a "tax" precludes it from being treated as a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act.
(2) The individual mandate provision of the ACA functions constitutionally as a tax, and is therefore a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power. (3) Congress exceeded its Spending Clause authority by coercing states into a transformative change in their Medicaid programs by threatening to revoke all of their Medicaid funding if they did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, which would have an excessive impact on a state's budget. Congress may withhold from states refusing to comply with the ACA's Medicaid expansion provision only the additional funding for Medicaid provided under the ACA.[1]

Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority Roberts (parts I, II, III-C), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence Roberts (part IV), joined by Breyer, Kagan
Concurrence Roberts (parts III-A, III-B, III-D)
Concur/dissent Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; and Breyer, Kagan (parts I, II, III, IV)
Dissent Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I; 124 Stat. 119–1025 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), was a landmark[2][3][4] United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress' power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare,[5][6] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act(HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to have health insurance by 2014.[7][8] The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 the individual mandateto buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power. A majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the individual mandate was not a proper use of Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers, though they did not join in a single opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that another challenged provision of the Act, a significant expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of Congress's spending power as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.

 

[Staidhup]

So again I ask why is no one willing to confront the elephant in the room, lobbyists, and attorneys? I believe given a chance the free unobstructed market place can drive the cost of health insurance down. I also believe at the same time that the federal government has the responsibility to establish a preexisting high risk pool to insure coverage premiums for those that would ordinarily have fallen through the cracks. Regardless the first sentence of my opinion must be addressed first and should have been done so prior to passing this ridiculous and costly piece of legislation that strip the freedom of choice out of the hands of all Americans.

 

[Doc1]

I believe the court ruled that it was a tax, which congress is empowered to levy, not under the general welfare clause, which if I am not mistaken was a clause designed to encompass national security, safety, freedom, and unrestricted commerce between states.

You would be wrong.

Nope, you're wrong.

 

[otto105]

So again I ask why is no one willing to confront the elephant in the room, lobbyists, and attorneys? I believe given a chance the free unobstructed market place can drive the cost of health insurance down. I also believe at the same time that the federal government has the responsibility to establish a preexisting high risk pool to insure coverage premiums for those that would ordinarily have fallen through the cracks. Regardless the first sentence of my opinion must be addressed first and should have been done so prior to passing this ridiculous and costly piece of legislation that strip the freedom of choice out of the hands of all Americans.

The PPACA has saved the government on healthcare costs and repeal efforts have shown this to be true. That fact alone is why republics have backed away from repeal efforts.

Your belief as it cost more need to be justified.

 

[otto105]

So again I ask why is no one willing to confront the elephant in the room, lobbyists, and attorneys? I believe given a chance the free unobstructed market place can drive the cost of health insurance down. I also believe at the same time that the federal government has the responsibility to establish a preexisting high risk pool to insure coverage premiums for those that would ordinarily have fallen through the cracks. Regardless the first sentence of my opinion must be addressed first and should have been done so prior to passing this ridiculous and costly piece of legislation that strip the freedom of choice out of the hands of all Americans.

Additionally, just how would a libertarian pipe dream on costs work?


We had that system prior to the PPACA and costs skyrocketed.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing healthcare to people will cause Congress, SCOTUS and others to go to hell?

Did your jesus tell you this when he passed over the meek while threading the rich thru the eye of a needle?

I have no use for Jesus or any other organized religious icon. I don’t believe in organized religion.

Yes, I do believe that the immoral concept of stealing money from people to pay other people’s healthcare bills damages the Soul of everyone involved. The whole concept is patently immoral.

it isn't stealing if you have nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost. just politics.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe the court ruled that it was a tax, which congress is empowered to levy, not under the general welfare clause, which if I am not mistaken was a clause designed to encompass national security, safety, freedom, and unrestricted commerce between states.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, should solve this issue in a market friendly manner.

Otherwise, it should be taxed like any other tax to fund that account. Payments could be disbursed from that account to cover costs.

 

[dblack]

Corporate lobbyists own our politicians. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are slaves to big money. They are guided more by money than by principle. Both parties are bitches to special interests.

The goal of these lobbyists is to strengthen the power of the corporation’s will and to have less regulation by the government.

I suspect that this is rarely, if ever, true. The goal of lobbyists is to control regulation, to steer it in such a way that it gives their employers a competitive advantage. Often, this means more government, more regulation. Lobbyists wrote ACA, for example, and handed it to politicians to pass on their behalf (google "Liz Fowler ACA").

 

[Anathema]

it isn't stealing if you have nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost. just politics.

It is most definitely THEFT when you utilize immoral, illegal and unconstitutional Government policies to take money from me and use it to benefit others.

Repeal of ALL Government involvement in medical and health issues i the only Constitutional and Moral option.

Cost is immaterial.

 

[danielpalos]

it isn't stealing if you have nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost. just politics.

It is most definitely THEFT when you utilize immoral, illegal and unconstitutional Government policies to take money from me and use it to benefit others.

Repeal of ALL Government involvement in medical and health issues i the only Constitutional and Moral option.

Cost is immaterial.

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax, not the right to tax.

 

[Anathema]

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax, not the right to tax.

The ACA is not a tax. No matter what bullshit SCOTUS may suggest. It’s an illegal, immoral and unconstitutional social welfare program just like Social Security, Medicare and a ton of other crap.

 

[danielpalos]

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax, not the right to tax.

The ACA is not a tax. No matter what bullshit SCOTUS may suggest. It’s an illegal, immoral and unconstitutional social welfare program just like Social Security, Medicare and a ton of other crap.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, should solve this issue in a market friendly manner.

Otherwise, it should be taxed like any other tax to fund that account. Payments could be disbursed from that account to cover costs.

 

[Anathema]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, should solve this issue in a market friendly manner.

Again, unconstitutional ideas in every way. Please go and read the US Constitution if you want to continue discussing this topic with me.

Focus on Article I , Section 8 and the 10th Amendment.

 

[DOTR]

Honey child, Billy000 Boo Boo. You can't afford it. And neither can our government. Is it clear for you now? Just because you think you can spend someone else's money doesn't not mean however many mental gymnastics you pull justifies doing so.

Oh and the excuses you give for people spending money that they don't have doesn't work either. Which would explain why you are lost in confusion.

Oh it’s definitely affordable. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any nation on earth.

And we have the best on earth. When we go to Houston for my daughter's treatments the waiting rooms sound like a UN meeting. And thats just patients. The best doctors in the world get here as quick as they can as well.

 

[Billy000]

Honey child, Billy000 Boo Boo. You can't afford it. And neither can our government. Is it clear for you now? Just because you think you can spend someone else's money doesn't not mean however many mental gymnastics you pull justifies doing so.

Oh and the excuses you give for people spending money that they don't have doesn't work either. Which would explain why you are lost in confusion.

Oh it’s definitely affordable. The US spends more per capita on healthcare than any nation on earth.

And we have the best on earth. When we go to Houston for my daughter's treatments the waiting rooms sound like a UN meeting. And thats just patients. The best doctors in the world get here as quick as they can as well.

Yes, our quality is top notch, but that doesn’t mean shit if most people can’t afford it.