How is repealing the madate going to save money?

[Penelope]

easy , take away subsidizes of the people who get insurance instead of paying the fine and doing away completely with Medicaid subsidies.

Not really helping the working poor, but they have to get money from somewhere to lower the top bracket to 35% (as DT wants ) and give tax breaks to flow through businesses and corps , repeal the AMT and expand inheritance tax and HSA's.

Sound so much like a tax cut for the lower and middle income.

 

[WillowTree]

What was the question? Mandate? Does mandate sound like choice to you? You are a very confused woman.

 

[TNHarley]

Ill make a deal with you.
Lets get rid of all illegals. Cut off ALL incentive.
Then we can subsidize the lazy, irresponsible and poor peoples.
How about that?

 

[MadChemist]

easy , take away subsidizes of the people who get insurance instead of paying the fine and doing away completely with Medicaid subsidies.

Not really helping the working poor, but they have to get money from somewhere to lower the top bracket to 35% (as DT wants ) and give tax breaks to flow through businesses and corps , repeal the AMT and expand inheritance tax and HSA's.

Sound so much like a tax cut for the lower and middle income.

But isn't the argument that the people affected will cost MORE in the long run ?

 

[Penelope]

Ill make a deal with you.
Lets get rid of all illegals. Cut off ALL incentive.
Then we can subsidize the lazy, irresponsible and poor peoples.
How about that?

People on the ACA work, and you are under a misconception if you think the majority of those who get subsidies are lazy and irresponsible.

 

[Penelope]

easy , take away subsidizes of the people who get insurance instead of paying the fine and doing away completely with Medicaid subsidies.

Not really helping the working poor, but they have to get money from somewhere to lower the top bracket to 35% (as DT wants ) and give tax breaks to flow through businesses and corps , repeal the AMT and expand inheritance tax and HSA's.

Sound so much like a tax cut for the lower and middle income.

But isn't the argument that the people affected will cost MORE in the long run ?

Yes you will see insurance cost even more, those uninsured will make ins go up, that is why there is a mandate for insurance.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I do not consent to having any Mandate. We don't need the government running our lives.

 

[Penelope]

I do not consent to having any Mandate. We don't need the government running our lives.

That is not running your life, if you have a car, you need ins, if you have a body you need ins. Same thing. Insure yourself. We have many laws, don't be a drain on society, insure yourself.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Sen. Patrick Leahy ✔ @SenatorLeahy
I KNOW I shouldn't have retweeted this. A moment of weakness... https://twitter.com/TomthunkitsMind/status/930941614402473984 …

6:45 PM - Nov 15, 2017

Tomthunkit™ @TomthunkitsMind
Obamacare vs. trumpcare...you decide.

6:32 PM - Nov 15, 2017

 

[Natural Citizen]

That is not running your life, if you have a car, you need ins, if you have a body you need ins. Same thing. Insure yourself. We have many laws, don't be a drain on society, insure yourself.

Insurance mandates clearly exceed the federal government's power under the Interstate Commerce Clause which is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Therefore, the power to regulate commerce cannot compel commerce. The Commerce Clause was intended to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade and to prevent States from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. It's rather simple. Additionally, Federalist Paper # 22 makes it clear that the intent behind the Clause was to prevent States from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they pass through each State.

Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution because they do not want to limit federal power in any way. Or in many instances simply aren't qualified to discuss it. In this case, I imagine the former. You may as well throw the Tenth Amendment out the window. Which I suppose may likely also be the intention in some cases. Depending on the perceived usefulness of one's audience.

For your reference... Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and Federalist # 22 by Hamilton, of all people.

 

[dblack]

For your reference... Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and Federalist # 22 by Hamilton, of all people.

Yeah. That was before Hamilton hooked up with his bankster friends.

 

[WillowTree]

I do not consent to having any Mandate. We don't need the government running our lives.

That is not running your life, if you have a car, you need ins, if you have a body you need ins. Same thing. Insure yourself. We have many laws, don't be a drain on society, insure yourself.

Then why must we pay for ours and then be forced to pay for theirs or in your muddled view is everyone paying their own insurance?

 

[WillowTree]

Kill the mandate. Build the wall. Fair flat tax.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Ill make a deal with you.
Lets get rid of all illegals. Cut off ALL incentive.
Then we can subsidize the lazy, irresponsible and poor peoples.
How about that?

People on the ACA work, and you are under a misconception if you think the majority of those who get subsidies are lazy and irresponsible.

The number of unemployed on Medicaid has exploded

 

[Natural Citizen]

Then why must we pay for ours and then be forced to pay for theirs or in your muddled view is everyone paying their own insurance?

Wickard v. Filburn 1942. In that instance the court decided that a farmer growing his wheat for purely personal use still affected Interstate Commerce, presumably by not participating in it. Scwewy, Huh? The SCOTUS has been utterly abusing the Commerce Clause for decades.

Anyway. Still more SCOTUS seats left to fill. In time.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Then again, the doctrine of Judicial review is no place to be found in Article 3 of the Constitution as far as I can tell. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, then, I'll be on the neighborhood. I'm always anxious to learn. I'm of the view that it's Federalism and States rights that protect our Individual liberties against extra-constitutional excesses of the federal government as opposed to a mere swing vote among nine Individuals sitting on a God-like court.

 

[MadChemist]

easy , take away subsidizes of the people who get insurance instead of paying the fine and doing away completely with Medicaid subsidies.

Not really helping the working poor, but they have to get money from somewhere to lower the top bracket to 35% (as DT wants ) and give tax breaks to flow through businesses and corps , repeal the AMT and expand inheritance tax and HSA's.

Sound so much like a tax cut for the lower and middle income.

But isn't the argument that the people affected will cost MORE in the long run ?

Yes you will see insurance cost even more, those uninsured will make ins go up, that is why there is a mandate for insurance.

No, that isn't what I've heard....unless I've missed connecting the dots.

Uninsured don't make insurance go up. Those who use medical help and don't pay make insurance go up.

There are plenty of people who did not have insurance who paid for services as they went along.

There are those who don't have insurance who don't address issues that become more costly down the road. That makes insurance more expensive.

Guess what ? There are people with insurance who do the same thing.

So, this isn't a given.

 

[Penelope]

I do not consent to having any Mandate. We don't need the government running our lives.

That is not running your life, if you have a car, you need ins, if you have a body you need ins. Same thing. Insure yourself. We have many laws, don't be a drain on society, insure yourself.

Then why must we pay for ours and then be forced to pay for theirs or in your muddled view is everyone paying their own insurance?

News flash , you pay for the uninsured. If the bill passes, I will no longer blame people for being uninsured, as it will be the GOP's fault. Since the wealthy get a huge tax cut, I think the middle class should pay 0. How about that?

You want to see a drain on society, you are about to get a huge one.

 

[WillowTree]

I do not consent to having any Mandate. We don't need the government running our lives.

That is not running your life, if you have a car, you need ins, if you have a body you need ins. Same thing. Insure yourself. We have many laws, don't be a drain on society, insure yourself.

Then why must we pay for ours and then be forced to pay for theirs or in your muddled view is everyone paying their own insurance?

News flash , you pay for the uninsured. If the bill passes, I will no longer blame people for being uninsured, as it will be the GOP's fault. Since the wealthy get a huge tax cut, I think the middle class should pay 0. How about that?

You want to see a drain on society, you are about to get a huge one.

Answer me this. Who should get a tax cut? The people who pay taxes or the people who don’t?

 

[MadChemist]

I do not consent to having any Mandate. We don't need the government running our lives.

That is not running your life, if you have a car, you need ins, if you have a body you need ins. Same thing. Insure yourself. We have many laws, don't be a drain on society, insure yourself.

Then why must we pay for ours and then be forced to pay for theirs or in your muddled view is everyone paying their own insurance?

News flash , you pay for the uninsured. If the bill passes, I will no longer blame people for being uninsured, as it will be the GOP's fault. Since the wealthy get a huge tax cut, I think the middle class should pay 0. How about that?

You want to see a drain on society, you are about to get a huge one.

You are correct that we pay for the uninsured who won't pay and the partially insured who won't pay.

Should we discuss whether or not we want to continue doing so ?

We do have the option to not treat them. It's heartless, but it is an option.