Individual mandate in trouble?

[The T]

Or....we could remove the profit motive from anything having to do with the health and wellness of our fellow humans........your god's children..........and place the burden for the health of our brothers and sisters on all of our shoulders.

Slavery is unconstitutional. Sorry.

But our Government is selling future generations into massive debt that they are gonna have to pay for.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Except, you can opt out of health care.

The loving, caring, benevolent christian says it all.

You really think you are forced to purchase healthcare? That you have no other choices?

In fact, there are Supreme Court cases stating that you can opt out of health care if you so choose. The rulings were made under the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You seem to think that the loving thing is to force your viewpoints and solutions onto people. That's probably why you don't understand Christianity. The Gospel requires a willing heart and mind. You can't save people through the use of force. People have to make their own choices.

No.......I think the loving thing is to care for others. Period.

You are looking for excuses to disregard others. Ayn Rand is your Jesus.

 

[Dragon]

LOL I love it when ignorant people question something as obvious as judicial review. The Constitution doesn't say in plain language that even the logically challenged can follow and understand, "The Supreme Court may, when a case is brought before it, rule whether a law is constitutional or not," and because of this, the logically challenged assume no such power exists.

It does. It follows with perfect,unassailable logic from what the Constitution DOES say in plain language about the Court, which is:

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (Article III, Section 1.)

What is "the judicial power"? It's the power to try cases and determine facts and law. What does this mean? It means that any case under federal law may be brought before the federal courts, and on appeal before the Supreme Court, which will decide the issue.

Now, suppose that a case is brought on appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court (from which there is no further appeal, except, in criminal cases, to the president for a pardon -- in civil cases no appeal, period) may say the following, after considering the facts and law of the case.

"We rule this way, on the grounds that the law in question conflicts with the Constitution and, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, is null and void. If a similar case is brought before us in the future, we will rule the same way on the same basis. Although we have no authority to strike down the law in question as such, anyone affected by it may take the matter to court and, upon it reaching this Court on appeal, we will rule as if the law were null and void, so any action on the basis of the law would be a waste of time and energy."

That is the logical, inevitable outcome of the Court having "the judicial power." "Striking down a law as unconstitutional" is just shorthand.

 

[Avatar4321]

I all for it going down as long as we FORCE insurance companies to pick up the perons coverage if they do get sick. Good if they make less profit. This pre existing condition stuff? Those who say no I hope for their downfall. Pray for it.

Why exactly is it good for people to make less profits? You think someone shouldnt be compensated for some work? You think drs should allow themselves and their families to starve instead of taking the money they earn?

 

[Avatar4321]

No.......I think the loving thing is to care for others. Period.

You are looking for excuses to disregard others. Ayn Rand is your Jesus.

So you care for others by violating their wishes? Creating shortages? Providing them with crappier care? Increasing their costs? Driving medical providers out of business? You care for people by stealing their money and forcing things to be done your way.

That's not loving. That's criminal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are doctors in japan starving? The argument is fucked up.

 

[Ropey]

People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.

I agree. Of course this judge will ask deep questions from both sides of the divide. The mandate is far more important than the rest of Obama Care. Of course it all falls down to forcing the public and if that mandate fails, then so does the Obama Care payment structure. If there's no money to follow, there's no one following.

If the mandate passes and Obama Care were to be repealed or not, this still allows for an individual mandate tied to commerce.

 

[The T]

I all for it going down as long as we FORCE insurance companies to pick up the perons coverage if they do get sick. Good if they make less profit. This pre existing condition stuff? Those who say no I hope for their downfall. Pray for it.

Why exactly is it good for people to make less profits? You think someone shouldnt be compensated for some work? You think drs should allow themselves and their families to starve instead of taking the money they earn?

They want Soviet-Style Government where you are assigned a job to do and you had better do it lest you and your family starve.

Statists fail in the free market, and fail in incentives save from forcing people to do under the point of a gun which is thier only incentive.

Everyone is the same in thier eyes...the idividual human doesn't exist in thier eyes.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's for overturning Unconstitutional laws. You would think anyone familiar with our system would know this.

LoneMoron thinks that if a law makes it to the President and he signs it, it is automatically Constitutional and the 'will of the people'.

I think it'll be a close vote, but may be wrong.

Yup it will be 5-4 unless Kagen grow some integrity, in which case it will be a not so close 5-3.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No.......I think the loving thing is to care for others. Period.

You are looking for excuses to disregard others. Ayn Rand is your Jesus.

So you care for others by violating their wishes? Creating shortages? Providing them with crappier care? Increasing their costs? Driving medical providers out of business? You care for people by stealing their money and forcing things to be done your way.

That's not loving. That's criminal.

Japan. Canada. Germany. France. Spain. The Netherlands. England. Australia. The lsit goes on. You are being lied to. Please learn.

 

[Katzndogz]

Okay, but that would also be the case if we passed a universal single-payer system. You'd still be able to buy insurance for things the single-payer insurance does not cover.

The terms universal and single payer escapes you.

I understand it perfectly well. Why is a single-payer system for senior citizens constitutional, but a single-payer system for all citizens not?

There's no mandate. There's no penalty for not taking medicare. obamacare is the first time in history that the government intends to penalize inactivity. That's why there were the questions about whether the government can mandate cell phones and burial insurance. The government has just never taxed or penalized NOT doing something.

 

[initforme]

"Why exactly is it good for people to make less profits? You think someone shouldnt be compensated for some work? You think drs should allow themselves and their families to starve instead of taking the money they earn? "


Please justify denying coverage to pre existing conditions. What are you going to do for those people? Do you think they should simply be told sorry and go home and get sicker and die? The system needs a complete overhaul, you cannot deny that. Seems to me that nobody is willing to do this because god forbid some insurance company might not make as many billions. I have said the gov't isnt going to fix it, but either is the free market. What is the solution? Where does it all end? Answer? Only the very wealthy can afford it. Thats where its all headed. But some people claim we have the best system in the world. We know who they are.

 

[Katzndogz]

People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.

I agree. Of course this judge will ask deep questions from both sides of the divide. The mandate is far more important than the rest of Obama Care. Of course it all falls down to forcing the public and if that mandate fails, then so does the Obama Care payment structure. If there's no money to follow, there's no one following.

If the mandate passes and Obama Care were to be repealed or not, this still allows for an individual mandate tied to commerce.

Inactivity does not come under the provisions of the commerce clause.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The terms universal and single payer escapes you.

I understand it perfectly well. Why is a single-payer system for senior citizens constitutional, but a single-payer system for all citizens not?

There's no mandate. There's no penalty for not taking medicare. obamacare is the first time in history that the government intends to penalize inactivity. That's why there were the questions about whether the government can mandate cell phones and burial insurance. The government has just never taxed or penalized NOT doing something.

Are you sure about that?

 

[initforme]

"Everyone is the same in thier eyes...the idividual human doesn't exist in thier eyes. "

So what you are saying is that some simply should not have affordable health care? They made decisions that now make health care unaffordable so it is their fault? I'm not asking for the gov't to fix it. The free market wont fix it either. What is your solution to slash prices by more than 50 percent to make it affordable to those without insurance?

 

[Katzndogz]

I understand it perfectly well. Why is a single-payer system for senior citizens constitutional, but a single-payer system for all citizens not?

There's no mandate. There's no penalty for not taking medicare. obamacare is the first time in history that the government intends to penalize inactivity. That's why there were the questions about whether the government can mandate cell phones and burial insurance. The government has just never taxed or penalized NOT doing something.

Are you sure about that?

That is what the Justices said. To tax or penalize inactivity fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the government.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think the whole idea of 'health insurance' should be rewritten at it was over 40 years ago, to 'hospitalization' or 'catastrophic health insurance.' Stop the payouts and coverages on things people can afford, such as immunizations, sports and health physicals, eyeglasses, etc. Cover pregnancy and other expensive items. Hospital care in general and expensive out patient care like chemo or dialysis.

The deductibles can pretty much cover what should be covered, say $1k.

We could always also just get the government out of it and allow people to contract with insurance companies for coverge they want.

Or....we could remove the profit motive from anything having to do with the health and wellness of our fellow humans........your god's children..........and place the burden for the health of our brothers and sisters on all of our shoulders.

While we're at it. maybe we should force carpenters and farmers to forgo their profit motives as well? What else do you think citizens should get free from the government? Cable? Internet? IPods? Condoms?

 

[Avatar4321]

People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.

I agree. Of course this judge will ask deep questions from both sides of the divide. The mandate is far more important than the rest of Obama Care. Of course it all falls down to forcing the public and if that mandate fails, then so does the Obama Care payment structure. If there's no money to follow, there's no one following.

If the mandate passes and Obama Care were to be repealed or not, this still allows for an individual mandate tied to commerce.

I dont know about that. There may be other things hidden in Obamacare that are more important than Obamacare. It is a large bill.

 

[Katzndogz]

You can remove the profit motive but how will you force doctors and nurses to care for you or specialists to diagnose you, tell them how bad they are when they don't?

 

[The T]

People should really put down their prediction rods. Getting asked tough questions in oral argument doesn't mean the judge is going to rule against you.

I agree. Of course this judge will ask deep questions from both sides of the divide. The mandate is far more important than the rest of Obama Care. Of course it all falls down to forcing the public and if that mandate fails, then so does the Obama Care payment structure. If there's no money to follow, there's no one following.

If the mandate passes and Obama Care were to be repealed or not, this still allows for an individual mandate tied to commerce.

I dont know about that. There may be other things hidden in Obamacare that are more important than Obamacare. It is a large bill.

"But we have to PASS IT...to find out what's in it..."