The single biggest problem with Obamacare.

[Toronado3800]

obamacare?
unconstitutional-period.
i will not comply.
******* make me.

Its debateable philosophically.

The general cause is hospitals treat everyone. Let them throw folks out on the street who cant pay when you show up with a gunshot wound and you'll have capitalism in healthcare. Make me pay for Mary who show up at the hospital and cant pay and i want her to have to pay for healthcare every day she ever works at McDonalds.

I dont like compulsive health insurance because I like others but because I want everyone FORCED to pay for themselves.

 

[Brutus]

Let them throw folks out on the street who cant pay when you show up with a gunshot wound and you'll have capitalism in healthcare.

but no one is proposing that of course! What conservative intellectuals propose is cutting the cost of health care by 60% with capitalism and increasing the ability to pay for it with capitalism.

If parents don't feed their children you don't say, thats fine the children cant pay for their own food; thats capitalism for you. Capitalism is an economic system only, it does not take care of all problems.


Also, it does no good to try to make people pay if they are on welfare and have no money or if you have a socialist health care system that can waste all the money there is. The USSR had higher workers participation than we do, but that does not mean people could pay for things. Liberal socialism makes things very expensive so fewer and fewer can afford them.

 

[Jessica Blume]

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.

It's all unconstitutional, and not paid for, and once we print the money to do so, we won't get the health care anyway, because it will bankrupt our country.

 

[Brutus]

Let them throw folks out on the street who cant pay when you show up with a gunshot wound and you'll have capitalism in healthcare.

but no one is proposing that, of course! What conservative intellectuals propose is cutting the cost of health care by 60% with capitalism and increasing the ability to pay for it again with capitalism.

If parents don't feed their children you don't say, "thats fine the children cant pay for their own food; thats capitalism for you." Capitalism is an economic system only, it does not take care of all problems.


Also, it does no good to try to make people pay if they are on welfare and have no money or if you have a socialist health care system that can waste all the money there is. The USSR had higher workers participation than we do, but that does not mean people could pay for things. Liberal socialism makes things very expensive so fewer and fewer can afford them.

 

[lehr]

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.

hillary healthcare advisor - vincente navarro is a leninist - lenin invented national healthcare just to register whole populations

obamacare has nothing to do with health !

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

hillary healthcare advisor - vincente navarro is a leninist - lenin invented national healthcare just to register whole populations

obamacare has nothing to do with health !

Sir or madam, has the social security administration not already registered you with a national ID number?

 

[TheGutterMaster]

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.

It's all unconstitutional, and not paid for, and once we print the money to do so, we won't get the health care anyway, because it will bankrupt our country.

The government has put us through 2 wars, added $14 trillion to our debt and we are still here, and we aren't experiencing "hyperinflation."

But now that the government wants to invest on something as important as health insurance for average people, it's "too much?"

Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?

 

[Brutus]

Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?

You don't seem to understand at all because you are a liberal? All the governemnt does is tax you to pay for health care so it is 100% impossible for you to get more or better care that way.

In fact, because they will be playing with your money, not theirs, you will be guaranteed 200% to get worse care or liberal care.

Also, because the government will be creating a liberal government monopoly with no competition you will get still worse care by 300%.

Liberalism is a lose lose lose situation and so should be make illegal as our Founders intended

 

[Toronado3800]

Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?

You don't seem to understand at all because you are a liberal? All the governemnt does is tax you to pay for health care so it is 100% impossible for you to get more or better care that way.

In fact, because they will be playing with your money, not theirs, you will be guaranteed 200% to get worse care or liberal care.

Also, because the government will be creating a liberal government monopoly with no competition you will get still worse care by 300%.

Liberalism is a lose lose lose situation and so should be make illegal as our Founders intended

Brutus, calm down! This is not that different than before except you will be penalized if you do not carry health insurance.

The penalty is a math trick to keep middle class folks from "cheating the system" by not carrying health in surance when they are young and think they are healthy. It seemed like a win win, cheat Brutus cheat Brutus system for them. 1 they were not paying for health insurance. 2 if they did get sick or have an accident big Eisenhower era government would step in and make the hospital take care of them. Worse come to worse and they do get stuck with a bill? Pay it off ten bucks a month forever or declare bankruptcy and poof, poor Brutus takes care of them.

If the billwas purely that simple would you support it?

 

[Skynet]

I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds
It is not debatable. The gov't. does not have the right to tell you you have to buy something.

if you read the ruling from the judges who has said the law is constitutional its actually quite interesting. they have said that health care is not a product one chooses to use or not, as every american at some point will use the services of a health care provider. due to this fact, and the fact the health care crosses state lines, the courts ruled that the government has the authority to regulate this market under the commerce clause.

i think a simple fix to this entire debate over the individual mandate could be put into the law and that is a simple exclusion waiver. if an individual does not want to purchase health care from a provider, they must sign a simple waiver, but by signing that waiver they revoke the right to receive any treatment at any time from any doctor without paying for those services in advance, this would include emergency and life saving services provided by EMT's and Emergency Rooms. Thus if you were in a car accident. or had a heart attack or stroke and were rushed to the hospital and did not have coverage you would be left to suffer until it was determined that you could pay for those services. that is the other side of this argument that no one ever talks about. is this a fair trade off if you oppose the mandate?

 

[Brutus]

I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds
It is not debatable. The gov't. does not have the right to tell you you have to buy something.

if you read the ruling from the judges who has said the law is constitutional its actually quite interesting. they have said that health care is not a product one chooses to use or not, as every american at some point will use the services of a health care provider. due to this fact, and the fact the health care crosses state lines, the courts ruled that the government has the authority to regulate this market under the commerce clause.

i think a simple fix to this entire debate over the individual mandate could be put into the law and that is a simple exclusion waiver. if an individual does not want to purchase health care from a provider, they must sign a simple waiver, but by signing that waiver they revoke the right to receive any treatment at any time from any doctor without paying for those services in advance, this would include emergency and life saving services provided by EMT's and Emergency Rooms. Thus if you were in a car accident. or had a heart attack or stroke and were rushed to the hospital and did not have coverage you would be left to suffer until it was determined that you could pay for those services. that is the other side of this argument that no one ever talks about. is this a fair trade off if you oppose the mandate?

1) a state mandate, like in MA, is fine because a state can regulate commerce

2) on Federal level it is a stupid socialist inefficient liberal bureaucratic monopoly.

3) on Federal level it is 100% unconstitutional because Commerce Clause is only suppose to settle significant trade disputes between states or between states and other countries. If a Federal mandate was legal in America then anything could be legal and America could be a communist country, not a free country as our Founders intended.

 

[Skynet]

I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds
It is not debatable. The gov't. does not have the right to tell you you have to buy something.

if you read the ruling from the judges who has said the law is constitutional its actually quite interesting. they have said that health care is not a product one chooses to use or not, as every american at some point will use the services of a health care provider. due to this fact, and the fact the health care crosses state lines, the courts ruled that the government has the authority to regulate this market under the commerce clause.

i think a simple fix to this entire debate over the individual mandate could be put into the law and that is a simple exclusion waiver. if an individual does not want to purchase health care from a provider, they must sign a simple waiver, but by signing that waiver they revoke the right to receive any treatment at any time from any doctor without paying for those services in advance, this would include emergency and life saving services provided by EMT's and Emergency Rooms. Thus if you were in a car accident. or had a heart attack or stroke and were rushed to the hospital and did not have coverage you would be left to suffer until it was determined that you could pay for those services. that is the other side of this argument that no one ever talks about. is this a fair trade off if you oppose the mandate?

1) a state mandate, like in MA, is fine because a state can regulate commerce

2) on Federal level it is a stupid socialist inefficient liberal bureaucratic monopoly.

3) on Federal level it is 100% unconstitutional because Commerce Clause is only suppose to settle significant trade disputes between states or between states and other countries. If a Federal mandate was legal in America then anything could be legal and America could be a communist country, not a free country as our Founders intended.

the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.

 

[Brutus]

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]

the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.

it seems you don't know the Commerce Clause at all. It only gives power to regulate significant trade disputes between states because under the Articles of Confederation each state had their own rules and so often but tariffs on goods from other states. Got it now??

It does not mean they can regulated anything they want. That should be common sense given that we are a free country,i.e., free from government. It is 100% amazing how little a liberal will know about the basics of his own country. Actually that is the definition of a liberal.

 

[Brutus]

Are you kidding me? We can afford 2 wars but not better healthcare?

You don't seem to understand at all because you are a liberal? All the governemnt does is tax you to pay for health care so it is 100% impossible for you to get more or better care that way.

In fact, because they will be playing with your money, not theirs, you will be guaranteed 200% to get worse care or liberal care.

Also, because the government will be creating a liberal government monopoly with no competition you will get still worse care by 300%.

Liberalism is a lose lose lose situation and so should be made illegal as our Founders intended[/QUOTE]

 

[Skynet]

the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.

it seems you don't know the Commerce Clause at all. It only gives power to regulate significant trade disputes between states because under the Articles of Confederation each state had their own rules and so often but tariffs on goods from other states. Got it now??

It does not mean they can regulated anything they want. That should be common sense given that we are a free country,i.e., free from government. It is 100% amazing how little a liberal will know about the basics of his own country. Actually that is the definition of a liberal.

the commerce clause per the SCOTUS has interpreted the commerce clause to mean the regulation of good and services the cross state lines. hence any product or service that crosses state lines the fed has the power to regulate. so it does not matter what the good or service it, it can be regulated.

the definition you are trying to follow is the original strict constructionalist version. what i am referring to is its current meaning based upon supreme court decisions

"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." from Gonzales v. Raich

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has in the last two decades played a part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most widely interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,

 

[Brutus]

the definition you are trying to follow is the original strict constructionalist version.

well if you dont follow the original meaning then you can follow any meaning and just be a liberal, but not a real American.

The Court swears to uphold the Constitution not give it any liberal meaning they want. What could be more treasonous than liberalism?

 

[Skynet]

the definition you are trying to follow is the original strict constructionalist version.

well if you dont follow the original meaning then you can follow any meaning and just be a liberal, but not a real American.

The Court swears to uphold the Constitution not give it any liberal meaning they want. What could be more treasonous than liberalism?

thats what the court has ruled. so how is it not law? just because you disagree with it, doesnt make it false. there are many things i disagree with that the courts have done (especially in terms of campaign financing and lobbying) but that doesnt mean the laws are any less true.

 

[Brutus]

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.

 

[boedicca]

if you read the ruling from the judges who has said the law is constitutional its actually quite interesting. they have said that health care is not a product one chooses to use or not, as every american at some point will use the services of a health care provider. due to this fact, and the fact the health care crosses state lines, the courts ruled that the government has the authority to regulate this market under the commerce clause.

i think a simple fix to this entire debate over the individual mandate could be put into the law and that is a simple exclusion waiver. if an individual does not want to purchase health care from a provider, they must sign a simple waiver, but by signing that waiver they revoke the right to receive any treatment at any time from any doctor without paying for those services in advance, this would include emergency and life saving services provided by EMT's and Emergency Rooms. Thus if you were in a car accident. or had a heart attack or stroke and were rushed to the hospital and did not have coverage you would be left to suffer until it was determined that you could pay for those services. that is the other side of this argument that no one ever talks about. is this a fair trade off if you oppose the mandate?

1) a state mandate, like in MA, is fine because a state can regulate commerce

2) on Federal level it is a stupid socialist inefficient liberal bureaucratic monopoly.

3) on Federal level it is 100% unconstitutional because Commerce Clause is only suppose to settle significant trade disputes between states or between states and other countries. If a Federal mandate was legal in America then anything could be legal and America could be a communist country, not a free country as our Founders intended.

the fed has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since health care crosses state lines this falls within the guidelines.

That is a bullshit argument.

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