[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]So you would deny what's best for america because our 200 year old document doesn't say anything about it?Omni-Slashyes...because "what's best for america" changes.....and if you're willing to throw away the document that keeps govt in check because of something you desire today....you have no understanding of why it was written in the first place..... But the constitution can be amended anyway... I presume when it is in America's best interest. Therefore appealing to the fact that something is constitutional is just terrible reasoning. You need additional reasons, otherwise the constitution should be changed.
Health Care Reform is Not Unconstitutional
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The other thing that everyone in this thread is missing is the fact that the Obama administration has handed (and continues to) out thousands of waivers to corporations, exempting them from ObamaCare. Now, even if we look past the shady argument that the federal government can mandate individuals to purchase insurance to begin with (which I think is dicey AT BEST), the fact that the government is allowing exemptions creates the same have/have not program the libs claim to be fighting against to begin with. If this was SUCH a great thing, and it was going to help people, businesses, the industry, and the economy SO much, why are businesses (including the SEIU, a HUGE Obama supporter) screaming to be exempted from it? And not just that -- why is the Obama administration giving the waivers if they are as enlightened as they and other libs claim to be and know that it will be good for all involved? Further, why did Obama, in his own 2008 campaign, say that forcing everyone to buy insurance wouldn't work any better than forcing homeless people to buy houses?
And finally, the Obama administration has gone on record saying that the mandate is absolutely necessary to the implementation, funding, and successful segueing into ObamaCare, and that without the mandate it's useless on one hand, and on the other, they're handing out waivers. Doesn't the selective implementation of it alone show the house of cards the Obama administration has built, and doesn't the uneven application of the law cause it to be unconstitutional on that alone? Aren't the libs saying they want health care out of the hands of bureaucrats? Yet they are all for bureaucrats deciding who has to buy what.... interesting.
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"]So you would deny what's best for america because our 200 year old document doesn't say anything about it?SolidSnake35yes...because "what's best for america" changes.....and if you're willing to throw away the document that keeps govt in check because of something you desire today....you have no understanding of why it was written in the first place..... But the constitution can be amended anyway... I presume when it is in America's best interest. Therefore appealing to the fact that something is constitutional is just terrible reasoning. You need additional reasons, otherwise the constitution should be changed.
And there's an extensive process which must be followed in order to make such a change to the constitution - it's not something that's done on a whim you know. If the SCOTUS finds the health care bill to be unconstitutional, then states or legislatures can draft an ammendment and have it go through the ratification process. While the Constitution exists as it is, what it says and means is more imporatant than anything else.
Also, how is reppealing this bill, denying the best for Amercians? Where's the limiting principle if this bill is passed? The government could essentially mandate the purchase of anything.
The other thing that everyone in this thread is missing is the fact that the Obama administration has handed (and continues to) out thousands of waivers to corporations, exempting them from ObamaCare. Now, even if we look past the shady argument that the federal government can mandate individuals to purchase insurance to begin with (which I think is dicey AT BEST), the fact that the government is allowing exemptions creates the same have/have not program the libs claim to be fighting against to begin with. If this was SUCH a great thing, and it was going to help people, businesses, the industry, and the economy SO much, why are businesses (including the SEIU, a HUGE Obama supporter) screaming to be exempted from it? And not just that -- why is the Obama administration giving the waivers if they are as enlightened as they and other libs claim to be and know that it will be good for all involved? Further, why did Obama, in his own 2008 campaign, say that forcing everyone to buy insurance wouldn't work any better than forcing homeless people to buy houses?
And finally, the Obama administration has gone on record saying that the mandate is absolutely necessary to the implementation, funding, and successful segueing into ObamaCare, and that without the mandate it's useless on one hand, and on the other, they're handing out waivers. Doesn't the selective implementation of it alone show the house of cards the Obama administration has built, and doesn't the uneven application of the law cause it to be unconstitutional on that alone? Aren't the libs saying they want health care out of the hands of bureaucrats? Yet they are all for bureaucrats deciding who has to buy what.... interesting.
Shame-usBlackley
Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|
But objectively they operate in the same manner. What you're focusing on is a nominal difference that isn't in any way substantive.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]
The difference is, that the constitution provides powers for Congress to levy an apportioned tax among the people, and that requiring people to pay taxes to the government is NOT the same as forcing people to purchase a service from a private company.
raynimrod
Yes, they operate in the same manner. In both cases people are required to spend money - I'm not disputing that.
The constituion provides power for the congress to levy taxes. It does not provide power for congress to mandate the purchase of goods and services from private companies.
This is the only issue here.
So what you're saying is that although A (taxation) objectively equates B (the individual mandate), B is not constitutional because it is superficially different than A, correct?Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|
DarkGamer007
What do you want sources on?
It's been widely cited by dozens of reliable news outlets and is common knowledge that Obama has been granting waivers to ObamaCare. Google it.
And the federal judge cited Obama's own campaign rhetoric in the ruling handed down just yesterday.
And my icon is more about the fact that I see Obama as a dangerous, psychotic clown than a simile of socialism or anarchy. Although I do believe he is against wealth and wants industry in the hands of government, a hallmark of socialism.
[QUOTE="raynimrod"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But objectively they operate in the same manner. What you're focusing on is a nominal difference that isn't in any way substantive. -Sun_Tzu-
Yes, they operate in the same manner. In both cases people are required to spend money - I'm not disputing that.
The constituion provides power for the congress to levy taxes. It does not provide power for congress to mandate the purchase of goods and services from private companies.
This is the only issue here.
So what you're saying is that although A (taxation) objectively equates B (the individual mandate), B is not constitutional because it is superficially different than A, correct?What I'm saying is pretty simple.
The constituion says the federal government can levy taxes.
The constituition does not say the federal government can force citizens to purchase goods and services.
But the constitution can be amended anyway... I presume when it is in America's best interest. Therefore appealing to the fact that something is constitutional is just terrible reasoning. You need additional reasons, otherwise the constitution should be changed.[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"] yes...because "what's best for america" changes.....and if you're willing to throw away the document that keeps govt in check because of something you desire today....you have no understanding of why it was written in the first place.....raynimrod
And there's an extensive process which must be followed in order to make such a change to the constitution - it's not something that's done on a whim you know. If the SCOTUS finds the health care bill to be unconstitutional, then states or legislatures can draft an ammendment and have it go through the ratification process. While the Constitution exists as it is, what it says and means is more imporatant than anything else.
Person A: "I want to pass law x" Person B: "Law x is not constitutional" A: "Yes, it is" B: "No" A: "Fine, I want an amendment passing such that law x is constitutional" B: "Done" A: "Why didn't you just pass the law in the first place?" B: "Dunno" It's just a guideline of what should typically work for America. Just pass the good laws and ban the stupid ones and cut out the middle ground. There must be reasons why things are "unconstitutional", right? Whatever reasons those are, they should be given. You can't just say... it's unconstitutional so stuff you. And if reasons exist, why mask them?[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
The other thing that everyone in this thread is missing is the fact that the Obama administration has handed (and continues to) out thousands of waivers to corporations, exempting them from ObamaCare.Now, even if we look past the shady argument that the federal government can mandate individuals to purchase insurance to begin with (which I think is dicey AT BEST), the fact that the government is allowing exemptions creates the same have/have not program the libs claim to be fighting against to begin with. If this was SUCH a great thing, and it was going to help people, businesses, the industry, and the economy SO much, why are businesses (including the SEIU, a HUGE Obama supporter) screaming to be exempted from it? And not just that -- why is the Obama administration giving the waivers if they are as enlightened as they and other libs claim to be and know that it will be good for all involved? Further, why did Obama, in his own 2008 campaign, say that forcing everyone to buy insurance wouldn't work any better than forcing homeless people to buy houses?
And finally, the Obama administration has gone on record saying that the mandate is absolutely necessary to the implementation, funding, and successful segueing into ObamaCare, and that without the mandate it's useless on one hand, and on the other, they're handing out waivers. Doesn't the selective implementation of it alone show the house of cards the Obama administration has built, and doesn't the uneven application of the law cause it to be unconstitutional on that alone? Aren't the libs saying they want health care out of the hands of bureaucrats? Yet they are all for bureaucrats deciding who has to buy what.... interesting.
DarkGamer007
Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|
I want some sources for those statements.
[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]
Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|
Shame-usBlackley
What do you want sources on?
And my icon is more about the fact that I see Obama as a dangerous, psychotic clown than a simile of socialism or anarchy. Although I do believe he is against wealth and wants industry in the hands of government, a hallmark of socialism.
Yeah, the healthcare reform in which he kept everything in private companies' hands and mandated that people purchase their product clearly illustrates that he wants all industries to be in the hands of the government.[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]
Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|
mattbbpl
What do you want sources on?
And my icon is more about the fact that I see Obama as a dangerous, psychotic clown than a simile of socialism or anarchy. Although I do believe he is against wealth and wants industry in the hands of government, a hallmark of socialism.
Yeah, the healthcare reform in which he kept everything in private companies' hands and mandated that people purchase their product clearly illustrates that he wants all industries to be in the hands of the government.Just because the form it currently takes doesn't involve the government, doesn't mean that that isn't the plan. I fully believe this is the first step -- the trojan horse to getting the public option, and the libs have said as much.
Yeah, the healthcare reform in which he kept everything in private companies' hands and mandated that people purchase their product clearly illustrates that he wants all industries to be in the hands of the government.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
What do you want sources on?
And my icon is more about the fact that I see Obama as a dangerous, psychotic clown than a simile of socialism or anarchy. Although I do believe he is against wealth and wants industry in the hands of government, a hallmark of socialism.
Shame-usBlackley
Just because the form it currently takes doesn't involve the government, doesn't mean that that isn't the plan. I fully believe this is the first step -- the trojan horse to getting the public option, and the libs have said as much.
That trojan horse already exists. It would be much easier to simply extend medicare gradually into lower age brackets then to try to morph the current reform into a government takeover.
This Cornell University page has some interesting things about the Commerce Clause in it.
The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states' powers to regulate. The "dormant" Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power.
*snip*
Yada, yada, yada cite some cases,,,Despite these decisions, the Commerce Clause could still effectively be used to limit the federal government's power, as the early years of the New Deal demonstrated.
*snip*
In 1995, the Rehnquist Court again restricted the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The defendant in this case was charged with carrying a handgun to school in violation of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that "[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."
The federal government's power was further restricted in the landmark case of Morrison v. United States, which overturned the Violence Against Women Act for its reliance on the Commerce Clause in making domestic violence against women a federal crime. 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Taken together, Lopez and Morrison have made clear that while the Court is still willing to recognize a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, if it does not find activity substantial enough to constitute interstate commerce it will not accept Congress's stated reason for federal regulation.
Cornell
While insurance companies may have offices in many states, insurance is regulated by the states and each state regulates the agents that sell insurance. I have yet to see an insurance agent from Alaska sell someone in New York insurance. Said Alaska insurance agent would have to be certified by NY and have an office there to sell insurance in NY. The feds appear to overstep their boundaries by making people buy something.
It will be an interesting case in the SCOTUS though.
So what you're saying is that although A (taxation) objectively equates B (the individual mandate), B is not constitutional because it is superficially different than A, correct?[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="raynimrod"]
Yes, they operate in the same manner. In both cases people are required to spend money - I'm not disputing that.
The constituion provides power for the congress to levy taxes. It does not provide power for congress to mandate the purchase of goods and services from private companies.
This is the only issue here.
raynimrod
What I'm saying is pretty simple.
The constituion says the federal government can levy taxes.
The constituition does not say the federal government can force citizens to purchase goods and services.
But in actuality there is no substantive difference between a tax and a mandate. Moreover, it's inaccurate to characterize the individual mandate as the government forcing citizens to purchase goods and services - what the individual mandate does is require people to actually pay for the medical care that they will inevitably receive, instead of forcing those who do actually pay for their medical care pay for those who don't. Not having to purchase insurance is pretty much the exact same thing as not having to pay taxes for the services provided by the police and/or fire department and yet still having access to those services.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Is not mandated by Congress as something a citizen MUST purchase.LJS9502_basicWhat's the difference between being mandated to get health insurance and being mandated to pay medicare taxes, social security taxes, or taxes in general? In both cases you are being forced to pay for a service.Tax is by nature different than being forced to purchase specific goods and services. And how is it different?
No it isn't, not even by definition.
raynimrod
That's complete and utter absurdity. I work in a law office, a regulation is a law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act was "signed into law" by Obama. Here is a link to a dictionary that makes the exact connection: "A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct." I can find more if you like.
No I didn't, please read the bolded part above. I haven't gotten to reading it yet, because you haven't been specific - you gave ma a whole bloddy case to read through -_-.
raynimrod
I provided a short qote that by itself proves what I was trying to get across. I'll provide it again:
"because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."
Not in the context of the constituion - it doesn't, and this is my point! In the constituion, its meaning is always "to make regular" or "to make uniform (structured)". Read each article in which the word "regulate" or "regulations" appears, they're mentioned eleven times.
raynimrod
See above and read the case links I provided before. This has been clarified and reclarified by the Supreme Court many times.
[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
The other thing that everyone in this thread is missing is the fact that the Obama administration has handed (and continues to) out thousands of waivers to corporations, exempting them from ObamaCare.Now, even if we look past the shady argument that the federal government can mandate individuals to purchase insurance to begin with (which I think is dicey AT BEST), the fact that the government is allowing exemptions creates the same have/have not program the libs claim to be fighting against to begin with. If this was SUCH a great thing, and it was going to help people, businesses, the industry, and the economy SO much, why are businesses (including the SEIU, a HUGE Obama supporter) screaming to be exempted from it? And not just that -- why is the Obama administration giving the waivers if they are as enlightened as they and other libs claim to be and know that it will be good for all involved? Further, why did Obama, in his own 2008 campaign, say that forcing everyone to buy insurance wouldn't work any better than forcing homeless people to buy houses?
And finally, the Obama administration has gone on record saying that the mandate is absolutely necessary to the implementation, funding, and successful segueing into ObamaCare, and that without the mandate it's useless on one hand, and on the other, they're handing out waivers. Doesn't the selective implementation of it alone show the house of cards the Obama administration has built, and doesn't the uneven application of the law cause it to be unconstitutional on that alone? Aren't the libs saying they want health care out of the hands of bureaucrats? Yet they are all for bureaucrats deciding who has to buy what.... interesting.
DarkGamer007
Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|
I want some sources for those statements.
This'll get you started (sorry, I'm having trouble with HTML on the site right now):
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/02/obama-gives-obamacare-waivers-to-28-unions-his-big-donors.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/26/obamacare-waivers-jump-from-222-to-729-covering-2-2-million-employees/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/teachers_union_gets_pass_on_obamacare_dhoJQgXRKLwbYtp6Nam7LK
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/17/dude_wheres_my_obamacare_waiver_107978.html
http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care-reform/2011/01/20/house-launches-investigation-obamacare-waivers
And here's the judge, citing Obama's own campaign BS:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obamasupported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, 'If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'" JudgeVinsonwrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page rulingMonday."
It's unconstitutional for Congress to force individuals to purchase....LJS9502_basic
Congress isn't forcing you to buy healthcare insurance, they're taxing you if you don't buy it. And by your logic, programs like Medicare should be illegal.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Yeah, the healthcare reform in which he kept everything in private companies' hands and mandated that people purchase their product clearly illustrates that he wants all industries to be in the hands of the government.mattbbpl
Just because the form it currently takes doesn't involve the government, doesn't mean that that isn't the plan. I fully believe this is the first step -- the trojan horse to getting the public option, and the libs have said as much.
That trojan horse already exists. It would be much easier to simply extend medicare gradually into lower age brackets then to try to morph the current reform into a government takeover.Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
That trojan horse already exists. It would be much easier to simply extend medicare gradually into lower age brackets then to try to morph the current reform into a government takeover.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Just because the form it currently takes doesn't involve the government, doesn't mean that that isn't the plan. I fully believe this is the first step -- the trojan horse to getting the public option, and the libs have said as much.
Shame-usBlackley
Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
It's broke because it only insures the nonprofitable people - the ones the insurance companies can't be bothered with because they're too old and decrepit. Spread the pool around the young and healthy as well, and the costs are lowered.This isn't about the law being unconstitutional - this thing is going straight across party lines which should sicken everybody on both sides of the aisle. Regardless, I'm going to laugh when it's ruled unconstitutional and a decade or two later (when the need for healthcare reform is dire) there's no choice but to go for single payer/public option.mattbbpl
Obama himself was against an individual mandate in 2008. You sure it's a party line issue?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's unconstitutional for Congress to force individuals to purchase....chessmaster1989
Congress isn't forcing you to buy healthcare insurance, they're taxing you if you don't buy it. And by your logic, programs like Medicare should be illegal.
there's no such thing as a tax on nothing...that's called a Fine......items are taxed....[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] That trojan horse already exists. It would be much easier to simply extend medicare gradually into lower age brackets then to try to morph the current reform into a government takeover. mattbbpl
Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
It's broke because it only insures the nonprofitable people - the ones the insurance companies can't be bothered with because they're too old and decrepit. Spread the pool around the young and healthy as well, and the costs are lowered.That's all fine, but we're talking about the perception of it by the public and its current state economically. The whats and the could'ves are not relevant to the argument when we're talking about the public view on the programs, and whether the possibility exists that the libs saw an easier sell with a new entitlement than an old one that everyone thinks is broken.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]This isn't about the law being unconstitutional - this thing is going straight across party lines which should sicken everybody on both sides of the aisle. Regardless, I'm going to laugh when it's ruled unconstitutional and a decade or two later (when the need for healthcare reform is dire) there's no choice but to go for single payer/public option.Shame-usBlackley
Obama himself was against an individual mandate in 2008. You sure it's a party line issue?
Yep. Republican judges are voting one way and Democrat the other. It's pretty clear. I'm sure we'll see the same thing in the SCOTUS as well.[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"]This isn't about the law being unconstitutional - this thing is going straight across party lines which should sicken everybody on both sides of the aisle. Regardless, I'm going to laugh when it's ruled unconstitutional and a decade or two later (when the need for healthcare reform is dire) there's no choice but to go for single payer/public option.mattbbpl
Obama himself was against an individual mandate in 2008. You sure it's a party line issue?
Yep. Republican judges are voting one way and Democrat the other. It's pretty clear. I'm sure we'll see the same thing in the SCOTUS as well.Yeah, even though your poster boy has changed his stance on it, it's still just a partisan issue, right?
Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
Shame-usBlackley
Why do you think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is broke? The government broke them all. This is one reason why there are Americans that do not want a universal health care option here in the US. The government cannot run a thing without breaking it. Look at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. We see what happened with both of them now don't we?
*edited for spelling*
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
WhiteKnight77
Why do you think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is broke? The government broke them all. This is one reason why there are Americans that do not want a universal health care option here in the US. The government cannot run a think without breaking it. Look at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. We see what happened with both of them now don't we?
I completely agree. Everything the government touches turns to crap for the most part.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
WhiteKnight77
Why do you think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is broke? The government broke them all. This is one reason why there are Americans that do not want a universal health care option here in the US. The government cannot run a think without breaking it. Look at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. We see what happened with both of them now don't we?
Medicare's fiscal problems are not the result of government inefficiencies. The government does a pretty good job operating medicare, and in many respects medicare is more efficient than private insurance. The reason for medicare's fiscal problems are rising health care costs.Yep. Republican judges are voting one way and Democrat the other. It's pretty clear. I'm sure we'll see the same thing in the SCOTUS as well.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Obama himself was against an individual mandate in 2008. You sure it's a party line issue?
Shame-usBlackley
Yeah, even though your poster boy has changed his stance on it, it's still just a partisan issue, right?
My poster Boy? Obama?! Jeez... you have no idea what my views are at all. I'm not an Obama fan. I'm not an Obama hater (although I wish he would have done a lot of things very differently). I'm an independent. My views coincide entirely with neither the left nor the right (although they coincided with the right a lot more than the left before the right wing lost it's collective mind).Medicare's fiscal problems are not the result of government inefficiencies. The government does a pretty good job operating medicare, and in many respects medicare is more efficient than private insurance. The reason for medicare's fiscal problems are rising health care costs. -Sun_Tzu-
Anyone who hasn't should watch the PBS documentary "Sick Around the World". It shows how health care systems are implemented in a bunch of countries and just how utterly out of whack how much people pay for medical services and prescriptions is here.
In Japan, the government actually controls the prices doctors and hospitals can charge for any given service and as a result people pay squat for their care. There isn't any shortage of doctors or any other problem there as a result. Apparently some of their hospitals have funding issues but it isn't anywhere near the level of problems we have here.
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Yes, but Medicare's broke. Most younger people don't even believe it will around long term. I believe this is why the libs trotted out a brand new entitlement -- because the existing ones are widely considered to be broken AND broke.
-Sun_Tzu-
Why do you think that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security is broke? The government broke them all. This is one reason why there are Americans that do not want a universal health care option here in the US. The government cannot run a think without breaking it. Look at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. We see what happened with both of them now don't we?
Medicare's fiscal problems are not the result of government inefficiencies. The government does a pretty good job operating medicare, and in many respects medicare is more efficient than private insurance. The reason for medicare's fiscal problems are rising health care costs.Then why aren't insurance companies broke?
Why is it always the government programs that go broke?
Then why aren't insurance companies broke?
Shame-usBlackley
Because they only cover healthy people.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Yep. Republican judges are voting one way and Democrat the other. It's pretty clear. I'm sure we'll see the same thing in the SCOTUS as well.mattbbpl
Yeah, even though your poster boy has changed his stance on it, it's still just a partisan issue, right?
My poster Boy? Obama?! Jeez... you have no idea what my views are at all. I'm not an Obama fan. I'm not an Obama hater (although I wish he would have done a lot of things very differently). I'm an independent. My views coincide entirely with neither the left nor the right (although they coincided with the right a lot more than the left before the right wing lost it's collective mind).Fair enough, who did you vote for in 2008?
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Then why aren't insurance companies broke?
superfluidity
Because they only cover healthy people.
So only healthy people have insurance?
[QUOTE="superfluidity"]
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Then why aren't insurance companies broke?
Shame-usBlackley
Because they only cover healthy people.
So only healthy people have insurance?
I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditionsSo only healthy people have insurance?
Shame-usBlackley
That's largely the case for private health insurance, yes.
The weird loophole through which unhealthy people get insurance in this country is through their employer. Of course, they have to be lucky enough to find one that provides that benefit, and if they lose their job, they could literally die as a result.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Then why aren't insurance companies broke?
superfluidity
Because they only cover healthy people.
Insurance is a racket actually. The insurance company bets that no one gets sick, hurt, has a wreck, gets killed or what ever. They want to pay as little out as possible without going broke by paying what needs to be paid. Look at Renter's or Homeowner's Insurance. You pay to protect your property and the possible destruction of your place by either yourself or natural disasters (except floods). You pay a premium every year and if you do not have to make a claim in that year, the insurance company counts that as profit. You lost the bet.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's unconstitutional for Congress to force individuals to purchase....Omni-Slash
Congress isn't forcing you to buy healthcare insurance, they're taxing you if you don't buy it. And by your logic, programs like Medicare should be illegal.
there's no such thing as a tax on nothing...that's called a Fine......items are taxed....What would you call a lump-sum tax then?
It violates the freedoms of people and clearly shows the government taking advantage of its power. bbkkristianWhich reminds me, what sort of freedom is getting rejected by health insurers exactly classified as?
My poster Boy? Obama?! Jeez... you have no idea what my views are at all. I'm not an Obama fan. I'm not an Obama hater (although I wish he would have done a lot of things very differently). I'm an independent. My views coincide entirely with neither the left nor the right (although they coincided with the right a lot more than the left before the right wing lost it's collective mind).[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
Yeah, even though your poster boy has changed his stance on it, it's still just a partisan issue, right?
Shame-usBlackley
Fair enough, who did you vote for in 2008?
It was really a no-win situation for me, and I ended up not liking anyone. In the end, I voted for Bob Barr although I'm not really a fan of the libertarians as a party either.[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
[QUOTE="superfluidity"]
Because they only cover healthy people.
DroidPhysX
So only healthy people have insurance?
I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditionsFunny, I see hospitals full of them every day.I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditionsFunny, I see hospitals full of them every day.[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
So only healthy people have insurance?
Shame-usBlackley
Yup. Its the reason why your premiums go up. To recover the lost money.
[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"] My poster Boy? Obama?! Jeez... you have no idea what my views are at all. I'm not an Obama fan. I'm not an Obama hater (although I wish he would have done a lot of things very differently). I'm an independent. My views coincide entirely with neither the left nor the right (although they coincided with the right a lot more than the left before the right wing lost it's collective mind).mattbbpl
Fair enough, who did you vote for in 2008?
It was really a no-win situation for me, and I ended up not liking anyone. In the end, I voted for Bob Barr although I'm not really a fan of the libertarians as a party either.Then we share something in common after all.
I voted for Hideo Kojima.
Funny, I see hospitals full of them every day.[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditions
DroidPhysX
Yup. Its the reason why your premiums go up. To recover the lost money.
Yet that wasn't the argument you were making a minute ago.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment