The reason Government is the only option is simple; Private insurance companies siphon off 31% of every dollar spent on health care in this country. Unless you own a lot of stock in health insurance companies, this is not a good deal for you.
Can the federal government force you to buy auto insurance?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
The reason Government is the only option is simple; Private insurance companies siphon off 31% of every dollar spent on health care in this country. Unless you own a lot of stock in health insurance companies, this is not a good deal for you.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well no frickin crap. insurance companies are in it for profit. in other words, it's CAPITALISM.
so, if you are looking to make healthcare more affordable, you need to make a decision to do one of two things.
1) become authoritarian and implement price controls on the few insurance companies that there are,
2) open up the market so that many more companies can start dealing with health insurance and create competition to reduce prices.
choice is yours.
apple0154
MEOW
Why would health be excluded from promoting "the overall nature of the nation as it pertains to ensuring opportunity to succeed"?
If there is a way to increase the general health of citizens wouldn't that be considered an advantage? Surely a healthy citizen is more productive than an ill citizen.
apple0154
MEOW
What? I was simply pointing out that you misquoted the Constitution. I fail to see what you misquoting has to do with proving that the mandated purchase of health insurance is a load of shit.
Well, a good number of the signatories were members of Congress at the time. I imagine those people know a thing or two more about the meaning of the document based in its plain language than you do 200+ years hence.
Actually, they weren't.
And it has the power to tax you if you don't buy health insurance.
Sure they do. And I don't recall hearing any stories about Jefferson puking int he shirt pockets of the members of the first Congress. Or the fifth. And that was kind of my point above.
I'm not ignoring the method and only focusing on results. I'm simply sayign I don't see much difference in the methods.
It certainly wasn't my preferred method, but I still think it's constitutional. If I had my way everyone would be enrolled in Medicare and taxed accordingly.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what you are failing to acknowledge is that the central government was created with the sole intent of staying off the peoples back. forcing 'proper' health protocols does not coincide with that limited government mentality.
apple0154
MEOW
Let's be clear what "forcing" means regarding health care. No one is being forced to undergo medical procedures or forced to take medications or forced to participate in preventive measures such as exercise or eat a certain food.
The only "forcing" being done is expecting people to contribute to the general health of the nation and I have to repeat that in the dozens of countries with government medical plans there isn't one country in which the citizens consider their government plan to be something that is being forced on them. The fact is the contrary is true. The citizens demand their governments maintain the plans so one has to question if "forcing" is even an appropriate word to use.
I understand the limited government mentality, however, I also understand that the blatant lies and misinformation regarding government medical has played a big part. I don't believe the citizens will be against government medical once it takes full effect because that has never occurred anywhere else in the world and the rush, the urgency, to repeal the bill is due to that fact.
It's really a crime the way some politicians and talking heads are trying to deceive the American people.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The FEDERAL government can't make you buy insurance, even if you DO own a car. Automobile insurance is state regulated. The requirement of the state, for you to carry liability insurance, is a prerequisite for being given a license to drive. The requirements for comprehensive coverage are a prerequisite for being given the loan to purchase the car. In both cases, the provision is a requirement to protect OTHER parties, who might be harmed through your error.
None of this line of argument logically pertains to the debate on individual mandates for health insurance. If you get sick and have no insurance, no third party is harmed. Therefore, no compunction to make you buy insurance.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What do you mean you don't know whether it's constitutional? You know how to read, don't you? Go and read Article 2 Section 8, and show me where it gives the authority to the Federal government to mandate I buy ANY product! It's simply NOT THERE... ergo, it's not Constitutional. Now, will some bunch of pinheads with black robes "rule" it constitutional? We don't know yet, but clearly, the Constitution itself, does not delegate this power to the government.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You're not going to force me to purchase health care insurance. Period. I really don't care what other countries do, or how well they are pleased with their health care, they aren't the United States, and they don't have a US Constitution... that's the big difference. If you wish to live in some Nancy Pelosi delusional fantasy, that Obamacare is here to stay... be my guest, but that's not going to be the reality. It will eventually be repealed, if the SCOTUS doesn't 'repeal' it before Congress has the chance.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It was passed through less than honest political trickery and exploitation of rules. The Senate passed a bill and sent it to the House, and the House completely revamped the bill, adding piecemeal incentives along the way, in order to secure the votes, changing the fundamental dynamics of what the Senate passed entirely. When it finally got back to the Senate, where it should have been voted on again, Harry Reid knew, because of Scott Brown, he would not have the votes to pass what the House sent him... so he used "deem and pass" to finalize the bill and send it to the president. Obamacare would have never passed another Senate vote, and it wouldn't pass a current House vote.
Yes, the challenge before the SCOTUS will happen, and you morons seem all too confident that they will find in your favor on this... but I think you'll see a 5-4 vote against upholding constitutionality.
Um, no. It didn't go down as you claim.
I can't speak for the other morons, but I'm confident that most of the bill will be upheld.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Uhm, yes... that's exactly how it went down. "Deem and Pass" was used by Harry Reid, because he knew he couldn't get the votes to pass it otherwise. Let's not try to LIE around that now... people are not as stupid as you.
The bill is written without a severability clause, meaning, if the SCOTUS shoots down any part of the bill, the entire bill goes up in flames. This is precisely why the FL judge didn't issue an injunction to block implementation of the provision in question, because he believed the entire bill is unconstitutional.
No, it isn't. Deem and Pass (Demon Pass) was a strategy suggested by Louise Slaughter as a way for the House to deal with the Senate's changes to the bill. It was not the strategy ultimately employed, however. Reid got the votes. It passed the Senate 60-39.
The existence of a severability clause is pretty much irrelevant, which is precisely why the judge in Virginia didn't strike down the entirety of the law. The judge in Florida decided the individual mandate was not serverable and stuck down the entire law on that basis. Because he struck down the entire law and issued a judgment to that effect, there was no need to issue an injunction. The judgment does all the work required.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
60-39 was the vote for Deem and Pass! The bill itself, was never voted on again by the Senate. And they had to lie their asses off to get the votes for Deem and Pass!
No, the severability clause is most certainly NOT irrelevant. If any part of this bill is found to be unconstitutional, the entire bill is unconstitutional. The judge in FL couldn't issue an injunction against a portion of a bill that he found unconstitutional in it's entirety.
The 60-39 vote was for the bill itself. The Deem and Pass was a House strategy and it was never used. You're probably thinking of the reconciliation bill.
You should write a letter to Judge Hudson in Virginia. He is apparently unfamiliar with this particular legal principle and, since you're an expert and all, I'm sure he'd appreciate the help.
He could have issued an injunction if he wanted to, he just didn't need to.
Um, no, it is not capitalism. It is fascism, the merger of corporate and government. There is little capitalism practiced these days.
Wrong again, those are not the only options. The rest of the civilized world has socialized medical care, with no unneeded profit takers. Here that is fine, but only if you are at least 62 years old.
2 things, Yes I know how to read, but I am not a lawyer nor a judge. I am glad you are, you clearly don't need the supremes.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. I disagree. Does that make them wrong?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I am thinking of the revamped House bill, which had to be blessed by the Senate before moving to the president's desk. They did not have the votes to pass the House version, so Reid used 'deem and pass' ....they voted 60-39 to use this provision, to avoid further debate or discussion of the bill on the floor, and to just get it passed before recess. Because of Scott Brown filling the seat of Ted Kennedy (who voted for the bill), they knew they didn't have the votes to pass it again in the Senate, especially with the house revisions. Look, you can try and rewrite history on this all you like, some people out there are just as stupid as your avatar looks, and I'm sure they will believe you. But the truth of the matter is, this bill was passed through a series of 'tricks' and 'loopholes' in the rules, and with ZERO bipartisan support. Never in the entire history of America, has such a sweeping Federal entitlement EVER been passed without SOME bipartisan support.
Technically, he couldn't. Since there was no severability, and he was charged with ruling on a specific provision, the only option he would have had, would have been to render and injunction on the entire bill, but he felt that overstepped his bounds, since he was not called on to rule on the entire bill. This 'no severability clause' thing, is a big deal here, and it's being misinterpreted (or intentionally distorted) by the left. He ruled the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and that will appealed, then it will go to the Supreme Court, and they will find 5-4 that the entire bill is unconstitutional. And oh by the way... there are FAR more court cases than VA and FL here... much more fireworks to come on this!
From the FL judge's conclusion:
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.
You are referring to the reconciliation bill, as I suspected. Reconciliation is an entirely different procedure from "Deem and Pass." "Deem and Pass" (aka the "Slaughter Solution") was a strategy kicked around by the House that was never actually employed.
You are like a very confused little boy that really really likes the new toy he got for Christmas but doesn't really know what it is or how it works.