The single biggest problem with Obamacare.

[Skynet]

thats what the court has ruled. so how is it not law?

what?? the Court can vote we should be Nazis or communists and so regulate any amount of commerce they want in any way they want, but that does not mean it is not anti American not in the Constitution and treasonous.

hahahahaha youre really stupid.

the Supreme Court is the final word when it comes to all laws. if you dont like their rulings move!

 

[Brutus]

That is a bullshit argument.

I don't cross state lines when I drive across town to see my doctor.

you are 100% correct and the Founders would agree 100%. But, the liberals hate America and so need to interpret the Constitution in a Communist way.

They went so far as to say you can't grow pot for personal use because that would lower the demand for interstate shipments of pot.
If it affects interstate commerce they then claim they can regulate it. With that interpretation they can regulate anything and America is no longer America, just another liberal cess pool.

 

[Skynet]

That is a bullshit argument.

I don't cross state lines when I drive across town to see my doctor.

you are 100% correct and the Founders would agree 100%. But, the liberals hate America and so need to interpret the Constitution in a Communist way.

They went so far as to say you can't grow pot for personal use because that would lower the demand for interstate shipments of pot.
If it affects interstate commerce they then claim they can regulate it. With that interpretation they can regulate anything and America is no longer America, just another liberal cess pool.

nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.

 

[Flopper]

It's anti-American in that it does not rely on free enterprise. This is because the liberal mind lacks the IQ to understand free enterprise.

Free enterprise? Surely you jest.

Healthcare prices are not established by the free market. Insurance companies form networks forcing providers to accept the amount they are willing to pay. If the provider chooses not to participate, they will give up a large part of their business. Government, state and federal now pays more than 50% of our healthcare bills. The government doesn't pay the providers prices. They ignore the prices and pay according to their own schedule.

50% of Americans now get their private health insurance from non-profit organizations. Most people get their health insurance through their employer. They have little or no option in the choice of the company and often no option at all in choosing the plan. According to a recent AMA study, employers are finding less competition in the group healthcare market. In many rural areas, an employer may find he has only one choice to consider.

Patients have little or no choice when it comes to prescription drugs. Doctors prescribe and the patient pay with little or no alternative.

62% of our hospitals are nonprofit serving the community not stockholders.

So just where is all this free enterprise?

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf

 

[Brutus]

nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.

this seems over your head. Yes some medical care is provided across state lines and some products were shipped across state lines in 1787 but this does mean the commerce clause should be used to socialize commerce.

The Commerce Clause was for when one state put a tarriff on goods coming into its state.

 

[Toronado3800]

The penalty is a math trick to keep middle class folks from "cheating the system" by not carrying health insurance

Too bad you're not a real American. The mandate gives the Feds
the power to do anything they want next, while the Founders gave the Feds only specific enumerated powers because the Feds were thought to be evil usurpers.

If this is too conceptually complex for you please explain where so I can help you further.
Thanks

Brutus, my four year old niece knows how to convert people to her point of view with her nice words.

You on the other hand have the powers of Al Gore who if he were speaking in favor of the humane society would make ppl want a hunting season on puppies.

I will give you the Constitutionally questionable part.

Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.

General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.

Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama. You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.

More complex. The four year old is learning that.

Curious, if federal districts 1 to 50, errr, states mandated health insurance would you support it?

 

[Brutus]

Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.

Aschroft???????????? What????????????

General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama. You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.

what?????????

More complex. The four year old is learning that.

Curious, if federal districts 1 to 50, errr, states mandated health insurance would you support it?

no idea what do you mean???????

 

[Chris]

If the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate, the only option left will be the public option.

Which would be great.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

 

[Brutus]

If the Supreme Court rules against the individual mandate, the only option left will be the public option.

Which would be great.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

Fact, Pittsburg has more cat scanners than all of Canada. We do 200% more knee replacements than Europe! We have 60% better breast cancer survival here than England. We hold 80% of all recent medical patents.

However, it is very important to understand that our system is very expensive for 4 reasons:

1) we have a liberal welfare population that is very sickly

2) technologicially we are able to provide far more extensive care than is available in other countries

3) we are richer and so can afford more health care than in other countries

4) our system is in some ways more socialistic than Europe in that we have several inefficient forms of socialism, e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, VA, Schip, insurance regulation to make competition illegal, Medicare Advantage, Medicare supplements, prescription drug bill,(part D) etc.


The solution to our health care problems is capitalism, but since the liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism we can't be sure what will happen.

 

[Toronado3800]

Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.

Aschroft???????????? What????????????

General welfare kicks in as well as the interstate part already mentioned.Suppose that is the same ground which gave Reagan the right to declare war on Grenada or Bush Panama. You just can not have a strict reading when you want and a loose reading when it disagrees with you.

what?????????

More complex. The four year old is learning that.

Curious, if federal districts 1 to 50, errr, states mandated health insurance would you support it?

no idea what do you mean???????

Brutus, did I use cell phone slang or something confusing? Or is the "what" exclamation a statement indicating you disagree?

 

[Skynet]

nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.

this seems over your head. Yes some medical care is provided across state lines and some products were shipped across state lines in 1787 but this does mean the commerce clause should be used to socialize commerce.

The Commerce Clause was for when one state put a tarriff on goods coming into its state.

too bad you can't read either:

Article I, Section 8

Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Clause 1 refers to taxes:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Brutus]

nope but if you go on vacation and get hurt in another state, they dont transport you back to your home doctor, they take you to the nearest facility. if you want to go see a specialist out of state, you cross state lines. in essence your argument is that if you cross state lines you automatically lose your health insurance, or it becomes null and void. so if you travel you would actually need to purchase a policy for each state that you travel to. great argument.

this seems over your head. Yes some medical care is provided across state lines and some products were shipped across state lines in 1787 but this does mean the commerce clause should be used to socialize commerce.

The Commerce Clause was for when one state put a tarriff on goods coming into its state.

too bad you can't read either:

Article I, Section 8

Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Clause 1 refers to taxes:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

no idea how that relates to our conversation?? Commerce Clause was designed to promote free trade among the states and with foreign countries. At one point England would not ship goods under Articles of Confederation to us because each state had different requirements and tariffs. Get it now?

 

[Brutus]

Too bad Ashcroft already widened the feds power over healthcare removing the Republican's podium to complain about it at the same time.

Aschroft???????????? What????????????



what?????????

More complex. The four year old is learning that.

Curious, if federal districts 1 to 50, errr, states mandated health insurance would you support it?

no idea what do you mean???????

Brutus, did I use cell phone slang or something confusing? Or is the "what" exclamation a statement indicating you disagree?

please try to make your point using good English. Why not read what you write before posting?

 

[Skynet]

this seems over your head. Yes some medical care is provided across state lines and some products were shipped across state lines in 1787 but this does mean the commerce clause should be used to socialize commerce.

The Commerce Clause was for when one state put a tarriff on goods coming into its state.

too bad you can't read either:

Article I, Section 8

Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

Clause 1 refers to taxes:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

no idea how that relates to our conversation?? Commerce Clause was designed to promote free trade among the states and with foreign countries. At one point England would not ship goods under Articles of Confederation to us because each state had different requirements and tariffs. Get it now?

it relates because it gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. as health care is considered commerce, it falls under their jurisdiction. you claimed the commerce clause was to regulate interstate tariffs, which is incorrect.

 

[Brutus]

it relates because it gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. as health care is considered commerce, it falls under their jurisdiction. you claimed the commerce clause was to regulate interstate tariffs, which is incorrect.

if it gives them ability to regulate in general why not regulate that everything must cost 99 cents. You see, to be American you have to regulate as the Founders intended, not as Marx would have liked. Is this really over your head?

 

[Skynet]

it relates because it gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. as health care is considered commerce, it falls under their jurisdiction. you claimed the commerce clause was to regulate interstate tariffs, which is incorrect.

if it gives them ability to regulate in general why not regulate that everything must cost 99 cents. You see, to be American you have to regulate as the Founders intended, not as Marx would have liked. Is this really over your head?

the fed doesnt regulate every single piece of commerce. it doesnt regulate the food grown and shipped within the same state. it doesn't regulate the corner boutique who only sells to walk in customers. it can though regulate merchandise they purchase in other states and ship in. you have really shown that do not understand the constitution at all. do you think the founders had the internet in mind when the drafted it? what about automobiles? what about airplanes? this is why the courts must interpret the constitution based on the world today. back when it was written there wasnt very much interstate commerce, as transportation was very limited and had high costs. thus most everything an individual needed was available locally. now we are national / global economy. this is the result of the capitalism. certain things are made or grown cheaper and easier in certain parts of the county, or world. the same can be said for health care. if you live in Florida but want to see a specialist in New York, you have now crossed state lines. the same HC providers and insurance companies operate in multiple states, thus their product crosses state lines. is this really that hard to understand?

 

[Brutus]

the fed doesnt regulate every single piece of commerce. it doesnt regulate the food grown and shipped within the same state.

wrong wrong wrong!!!!! In the most famous recent case it held that it could stop a kid from growing pot for his own consumption because it would decrease demand for commercial pot and thus affect interstate commerce!

It can easily regulated intrastate food as filthy liberal communists would want. This is why intellectual Republicans want to make liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.

 

[Skynet]

the fed doesnt regulate every single piece of commerce. it doesnt regulate the food grown and shipped within the same state.

wrong wrong wrong!!!!! In the most famous recent case it held that it could stop a kid from growing pot for his own consumption because it would decrease demand for commercial pot and thus affect interstate commerce!

It can easily regulated intrastate food as filthy liberal communists would want. This is why intellectual Republicans want to make liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.

your lack of evidence speak volumes.

cause here was the ruling:

The court held Congress may regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.

although i disagree with the majority opinion and side with the dissenting opinion in this case. i still understand it.

 

[Brutus]

back when it was written there wasnt very much interstate commerce,

actually there was tons and tons of interstate and international commerce. The Boston Tea Party was about international trade, for example.

As I said the Commerce Clause grew out of problems under the Articles of Confederation wherein most states had tarriffs against other states. THe Founders were Republicans for free trade.

 

[Brutus]

your lack of evidence speak volumes.

lack of evidence about what exactly????