I truly do not know about other options or how to do it.
SCOTUS has said the ACA is constitutional, so any legal challenges may result in some amending but no overturning of the Act.
I know others on the Board are trying to figure this out:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/obamacare/317533-the-aca.html
What do you think of the lawsuit that argues since the Court ruled it "a tax"
then it is unconstitutional because it was not introduced through the
Senate as a revenue measure.
I looked up ACA and found it was passed as a revision or reform of a previous
public act on health care, and somehow the insurance mandate was added in there.
This does not appear to be a tax/revenue bill to begin with.
Is this just rhetorical argument about an "income tax" change which must
start in the Senate and a "different kind of tax" that could originate in the House?
Can that be used to strike down the insurance mandate?
It seems the part most contested is how the commerce clause can be
stretched to require that people participate in a private business purchase
of INSURANCE which is NOT the same as paying govt for health care services
and NOT the same as a tax. The tax or penalty is based on NOT buying insurance.
The second most contested part is why are only certain groups receiving waivers and exemptions based on either religious or political standing deemed qualifying based on questionable criteria that aren't available to all citizens to choose to equally opt out.
Lastly I find it disturbing that so many people are willing to admit there are problems with the bill and it needs amending, but don't seem to take either (a) responsibility for correcting, pushing corrections or supporting that process (b) the COST of the conflict over the bill being passed without first resolving conflicts and redressing these issues
If you were to allow faulty cars on the road, saying they need to be fixed, but not sure what and leave it to other people, but in the meantime the cars causes stall out, traffic jams or crashes, why wouldn't the people who allowed these things on the road be held accountable versus the people who asked to hold off on them UNTIL problems could be id and fixed.
Are so many more people being saved by the provisions?
If so, again, why couldn't those measures be afforded another way instead of violating constitutional rights of people who don't believe in stretching either the commerce clause or taxation definitions in such manner but believe in states and individual responsibility for costs of health care.
For that matter, couldn't we justify legislating prolife laws to save lives at the expense of constitutional liberty and integrity of free choice? And as I offered previously. to require participating in spiritual healing to save more lives and reduce costs of disease, treatment, even crime in order for more public resources to be able to serve and save more people?
That's fine if people want to start ignoring constitutional principles, but do we agree to be consistent? And let prolife people pass legislation they believe will save more lives at the expense of free choice? I think they'd be happy to be able to pass prolife laws, separating taxes and health care to pay for life and spiritual healing, and not pay for losses, damages, crime, abuses or addictions from people who refuse FREE preventative healing or cure.
Maybe that's where all this is heading, toward free health care
if we really expect to cover and protect all people equally.
It may not be insurance that allows this, but free methods that are easily proven cost effective by medical science, though too often rejected on religious grounds and political bias, but which may prove to be the answer to affording universal care.
Through the church, not the state. Certainly people should have free choice protected, especially when it comes to religious free exercise. The fact so many people are willing to turn a blind eye to this, and override freedom for the sake of political expediency is especially disturbing when those same people were the ones screaming about prochoice.
As mentioned before, I found it curious how the ACA caused prochoice and prolife advocates to sound like the other sides' arguments. Suddenly the prolife people want free choice not mandated, regulated or penalized by govt; and suddenly prochoice people are willing to sacrifice that to govt control in order to gain a sense of greater benefit and "more lives saved" which used to be the argument for prolife. That is most curious to me of all.
Whatever circus sideshow this turned into, on one hand I feel totally left out, not fully represented by either side, on the other hand I don't look forward to paying the cost of having to fix the problems after the fact when I believe the conflicts should have been resolved before passing such a bill. If no one claim responsibility, then why pass it. I had asked why not have each party pay for its own reforms, but even that was rejected. Why?
We have no problem with States paying for their own policies.
Or Churches and separate denominations/institutions enforce and pay for their own programs.
Why not let the separate parties with different agenda approach or ideology
pay for and run their own programs for their own members?
That sounds completely logical to me, yet neither side agrees and keeps imposing
on the other. So I am left out of both loops. While neither of theirs seem to meet Constitutional requirements of equal inclusion and protection of the laws. And my proposal would seem to protect both while preventing imposing beliefs of one on the other.
???
