Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Flopper]

Still answering questions with questions, huh?... Insurance also protects you from the other drivers who may not be excellent drivers... But if you don't drive you don't need to purchase car insurance... With 0bamacare, all are being required to carry insurance, which is similar to asking the non-drivers to carry car insurance....

I disagree with your assessment. If a non-driver NEVER drives then why would he need insurance. However, a human being, as some stage in live, will need health care. I have yet to meet a human who has never died.

However I have met a few who have never driven....

Does a person NEED healthcare insurance at 20-ish with low risk and no history of any life threatening diseases? I say no and it should NOT be the gubmint's decision that he must...

Why are some people "exempt" from 0bamacare?

Insurance only works if it contains both low and higher risk customers. If there are only high risk customers, then premiums increase forcing all but the highest risk customers from the pool which pushes premiums even higher forcing more people out of the pool. As the young grow older and decide they aren't going to live forever, they find insurance too expensive. When they have serious health problems they deplete their savings and often have to rely on society to pay their medical bills. This is no win situation for all but the very lucky.

 

[The Rabbi]

What happens to the 20-something year old who chose not to buy insurance after they are diagnosed with Hodgkins disease?

What if he isn't diagnosed with Hodgkins? (if you want to play the "what if" game...)

Shouldn't that guy be allowed to roll the dice if he want's to?



BTW, There are lots of charities and non-profits out there to help those who need it... but I digress...

Unable to come up with an answer, House responds with a question of his own.

I recall someone bringing that up earlier in the thread....

He pays for treatment out of his own pocket. It is his decision and his risk. Fortunately for society that doesn't happen very often.
What was your point again?

 

[Article 15]

What if he isn't diagnosed with Hodgkins? (if you want to play the "what if" game...)

Shouldn't that guy be allowed to roll the dice if he want's to?



BTW, There are lots of charities and non-profits out there to help those who need it... but I digress...

Unable to come up with an answer, House responds with a question of his own.

I recall someone bringing that up earlier in the thread....

He pays for treatment out of his own pocket. It is his decision and his risk. Fortunately for society that doesn't happen very often.
What was your point again?

To highlight what can happen when you choose not to be insured.

What happens when he can't pay out of his own pocket?

 

[The Rabbi]

Unable to come up with an answer, House responds with a question of his own.

I recall someone bringing that up earlier in the thread....

He pays for treatment out of his own pocket. It is his decision and his risk. Fortunately for society that doesn't happen very often.
What was your point again?

To highlight what can happen when you choose not to be insured.

What happens when he can't pay out of his own pocket?

He'll file bankruptcy. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often.
Any other irrelevant points you'd lke to make? What happens when a 12yr old steals a car and he isn't an insured driver? Maybe we need to force people to buy insurance for non drivers as well. What happens if..... The possibilities are endless.

 

[Article 15]

He pays for treatment out of his own pocket. It is his decision and his risk. Fortunately for society that doesn't happen very often.
What was your point again?

To highlight what can happen when you choose not to be insured.

What happens when he can't pay out of his own pocket?

He'll file bankruptcy. Fortunately that doesn't happen very often.
Any other irrelevant points you'd lke to make? What happens when a 12yr old steals a car and he isn't an insured driver? Maybe we need to force people to buy insurance for non drivers as well. What happens if..... The possibilities are endless.

Who pays his medical bills when he files for bankruptcy?

 

[idb]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

 

[Jackson]

Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip. This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009. The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression. The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history. And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.

That just wasn't wise.

Maybe 10 years ago. I know, they tried. Or ten years from now when we are on stable footing, if we are on stable footing.

But to take on a an obligation like that at a time like this when we are trying to get debt relief, get people back to work, bring companies back to our shores, don't complicate this mess with controversial programs like entitlements now. The time and effort given to this enormous problem has taken our focus away from the survival from our country's economic stabilization.

We have to cut spending....


We have to agree on what we cut...

We have to stop the president to stop thinking about freezing and investing and really cutting...

We have to decide on whether we raise the debt ceiling....

We have to work together in bipartisan manners... stop with the games and politics.

And if we have to..raise taxes.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, you liberals would know judicial activism wouldnt ya?

Ya'll are guilty of it FAR MORE than the right EVER thought of being.

Bullshit...Citizens United is the biggest piece of judicial activism in history...

Any decision you don't agree with is "judicial activism"...

I don't agree with the decision, but it was still judicial activism. Judge Stevens in his dissent makes that clear. The court was never challenged to rule on corporate treasury funding of independent political campaigns. The Court reached to make new constitutional law by ordering a re-argument of a minor case that itself raised no direct challenge to the laws and precedents that it ultimately overruled.

These are topics adults understand, maybe mommy can find someone in the trailer court that knows a lawyer to explain it to you.

 

[Jackson]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

You assumed too much. It was Obama's agenda, no one elses. In late 2008, the whole fiscal world was crashing around us. And he decided we needed Health Care Reform. Go figure.

 

[idb]

Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip. This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009. The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression. The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history. And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.

That just wasn't wise.

Maybe 10 years ago. I know, they tried. Or ten years from now when we are on stable footing, if we are on stable footing.

But to take on a an obligation like that at a time like this when we are trying to get debt relief, get people back to work, bring companies back to our shores, don't complicate this mess with controversial programs like entitlements now. The time and effort given to this enormous problem has taken our focus away from the survival from our country's economic stabilization.

We have to cut spending....


We have to agree on what we cut...

We have to stop the president to stop thinking about freezing and investing and really cutting...

We have to decide on whether we raise the debt ceiling....

We have to work together in bipartisan manners... stop with the games and politics.

And if we have to..raise taxes.

That seems a fair argument.
It's still a fundamental issue though I would have thought, and the distance between the two sides seems vast.
Much of the opposition I saw was extreme and often seemed ridiculous (see Death panels) - not at all related to economics.
As I understand it, not one Republican voted for the bill, how was it that the Democrats failed so miserably to engage the Republicans?
Could it be attributed entirely to politics or was it the result of honestly held positions?

 

[idb]

I want to ask a question from the other side of the world.
Assuming that both sides of the political divide agreed that healthcare in the USA needed fixing, why could they not work together to a solution...a bipartisan solution if you will?

Now I don't know for sure, but I can't recall a recent Republican president putting healthcare reform as a priority - that isn't a criticism, I guess that they were more focussed on other issues.
In any case, surely both parties would see healthcare as a fundamental issue in any democracy so why is it that, when it was obvious that it was a priority for the current administration, the other side couldn't get involved to produce a meaningful and enduring system.

You assumed too much. It was Obama's agenda, no one elses. In late 2008, the whole fiscal world was crashing around us. And he decided we needed Health Care Reform. Go figure.

Maybe you're right...in that case my question is answered.
The Republicans don't believe that there is any need for healthcare reform.

 

[Jackson]

Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip. This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009. The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression. The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history. And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.

That just wasn't wise.

Maybe 10 years ago. I know, they tried. Or ten years from now when we are on stable footing, if we are on stable footing.

But to take on a an obligation like that at a time like this when we are trying to get debt relief, get people back to work, bring companies back to our shores, don't complicate this mess with controversial programs like entitlements now. The time and effort given to this enormous problem has taken our focus away from the survival from our country's economic stabilization.

We have to cut spending....


We have to agree on what we cut...

We have to stop the president to stop thinking about freezing and investing and really cutting...

We have to decide on whether we raise the debt ceiling....

We have to work together in bipartisan manners... stop with the games and politics.

And if we have to..raise taxes.

That seems a fair argument.
It's still a fundamental issue though I would have thought, and the distance between the two sides seems vast.
Much of the opposition I saw was extreme and often seemed ridiculous (see Death panels) - not at all related to economics.
As I understand it, not one Republican voted for the bill, how was it that the Democrats failed so miserably to engage the Republicans?
Could it be attributed entirely to politics or was it the result of honestly held positions?

Honestly, I can't speak for all of them, but for the most part, they wanted to tackle the spending issues and what to do about the economy. Most of the dealings were behind closed doors and back room deals were made to some Senators to get them to vote for the program, ie. Ben Nelson and others which brought shame to them in their own states. That cost a lot of them their own seats in the election of 2010.

That's why the Republicans gave the "shellacking" to Obama in 2010. Now we'll have to see how the Republicans hold up their end to spending cuts. You heard that Obama merely wants to "freeze" spending but "invest" (spend) in America.. so it will not be easy. So it will have to be working together.

 

[idb]

Let me be the bug spray in the avacado dip. This whole thing began with Obama becoming president in 2009. The beginning of the biggest fiscal crisis since the depression. The first thing on this agenda was the largest stimulus and TARP bail out funds in history. And then the largest entitlement we've ever had, the Health Care Reform.

That just wasn't wise.

Maybe 10 years ago. I know, they tried. Or ten years from now when we are on stable footing, if we are on stable footing.

But to take on a an obligation like that at a time like this when we are trying to get debt relief, get people back to work, bring companies back to our shores, don't complicate this mess with controversial programs like entitlements now. The time and effort given to this enormous problem has taken our focus away from the survival from our country's economic stabilization.

We have to cut spending....


We have to agree on what we cut...

We have to stop the president to stop thinking about freezing and investing and really cutting...

We have to decide on whether we raise the debt ceiling....

We have to work together in bipartisan manners... stop with the games and politics.

And if we have to..raise taxes.

That seems a fair argument.
It's still a fundamental issue though I would have thought, and the distance between the two sides seems vast.
Much of the opposition I saw was extreme and often seemed ridiculous (see Death panels) - not at all related to economics.
As I understand it, not one Republican voted for the bill, how was it that the Democrats failed so miserably to engage the Republicans?
Could it be attributed entirely to politics or was it the result of honestly held positions?

Honestly, I can't speak for all of them, but for the most part, they wanted to tackle the spending issues and what to do about the economy. Most of the dealings were behind closed doors and back room deals were made to some Senators to get them to vote for the program, ie. Ben Nelson and others which brought shame to them in their own states. That cost a lot of them their own seats in the election of 2010.

That's why the Republicans gave the "shellacking" to Obama in 2010. Now we'll have to see how the Republicans hold up their end to spending cuts. You heard that Obama merely wants to "freeze" spending but "invest" (spend) in America.. so it will not be easy. So it will have to be working together.

There's some serious work to be done alright.

 

[chanel]

This was my favorite part:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce”…, it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place….

Pajamas Media The Unconstitutionality of ObamaCare in Black and White

 

[Ravi]

Medicare isn't a mandate?

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

No...but the same amount of force applies to purchasing insurance under the new health care rules as applies to purchasing medicare.

You are also not forced to use the insurance you purchase.

 

[Ravi]

I wont be happy till that POS bill is in the trash heap of history!

then you're a very good rightwing soldier.

tell me how much you hate the fact that insurance companies can't exclude people for pre-existing conditions.

i'll wait.

Had it just been that I'd have been all aboard the 0bamacare bandwagon....

I thought you were a free market loon.

 

[Ravi]

Medicare isn't a mandate?

and social security.

but they shouldn't let that confuse them.

this is the same 'let's kill the new deal' stuff the right has been doing since FDR was president. and any rational court knows what the law is on the subject.

which doesn't mean that they will actually act like judges.

yup, we pay a tax forward for benefits at a set age. no doubt of it...and?

any rational court will see this mandate for what it is- we are told to purchase a good/service. period.

you should listen to Obama during his campaign, he said it right then and there, there would be no end to what the gov. could ostensibly tell you to do. What happened to that slippery slope?


HE changed his tune (then changed it back- its a fee then its a tax now its a fee again) because he needed the money and the only way to make the shoe fit was to command everyone to buy a plan or be penalized. Does it bother you he lied...at all?

and just because you think its 'right' to command people to purchase goods and services, doesn't mean its 'right' OR justifiable.

Yes, a tax, a portion of your income is taken to pay for medicare. Just like a tax, a portion of your income will be taken if you don't buy health care coverage. They amount to the same thing.

It should be interesting watching Republicans in general assuring the elderly population that the two are somehow different.

 

[Ravi]

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

But, you're not forced to pay into it simply because you're alive. That's the problem with Obamacare.

If you don't earn income, you don't have to buy insurance...either medicare or private insurance. And you can't get a tax penalty for it because you earn no income so you are exempt.

 

[Ravi]

And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.

Feel manly now, bub?

Do you feel manly when you insult anonymous women over the internets?

 

[Ravi]

Get rid of the whole thing and write something that IS constitutional....


Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to by insurance he doesn't want or need?

Are we going to start requiring city-dwelling high risers who don't own cars to buy auto insurance anyway to pay for the idiots who drive around without it?

does anyone else want to tackle these questions?

Is car insurance compulsory in the US?

Cards on table: In my homeland it is not. In Oz it is.....

If you own a car, yes it is compulsory. However, you are not required to have collision coverage unless you owe money on the car. You are required to have liability insurance and in some states uninsured motorist coverage to cover the dead beats that break the law.