• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is the "individual mandate" a good idea?

mfdeacs99 said:
It would be legal is you called it a tax. This really does make a difference. A tax, this is 9-0. Commerce clause, it is likely 5-4 (possibly 6-3).

As for arm chair experts, I did get the Health Law award from Prof. Hall at Wake, who was the lead writer on the amicus brief. After retiring from legal practice this year, I'm also going full scholarship plus stipend to get my PhD in American Politcs, Law and Courts.
Click to expand...

Are you applying for a job with the boards? What's with all the award dropping? You want to just PM me your resume?
 
No, but in any debate where someone attacks credibility, which is always done here, it is better to show your background. You claimed all the experts found this to be legal. I'm telling you that knowing and learning from many of these people you are wrong. The experts used by the NYT, CNN and the networks certainly love it, but there are 50 just as qualfied folks in the Federalist Society who would and did shread these arguments apart.

Also, you called people out as "arm chair" experts. I am certainly not.
 
Also, humor me for a second. What do you do for a living and where & what did you get you education?
 
We already have an individual mandate. We are required to treat anyone that comes into an emergency room. That visit is then funded by government. That government bill is then passed on to the tax payers. We are paying for everyone else's insurance already, might as well be smart about it. I have no problem with an individual mandate.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Except nearly all con law professor/experts agree that this conservative idea is clearly constitutional. But what do they know compared to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?
Click to expand...

FIFY.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Are you applying for a job with the boards? What's with all the award dropping? You want to just PM me your resume?
Click to expand...

No way anyone would bother applying for a job until after the election. What's the point?
 
A couple of things about the mandate are that the first attempt at a mandate was an employer mandate by Richard Nixon and of course the other is the individual mandate is a Republican idea.

How come it wasn't "unconstitutional" when it was a Republican cornerstone?
 
I'm conflicted on the individual mandate as a matter of public policy but don't think that has anything to do with the constitutionality of it. I think this is the major reason why the mandate is so contentious. Obviously it would be beneficial if everyone had insurance, the question is how to reach that point within the boundaries of the constitution. We shouldn't just discard our laws for a matter of efficiency and ease.

I guess I have an interesting opinion:

A) I don't think I should be compelled to buy insurance if I don't want to
B) I think that everyone does need to have insurance
C) If there is going to be a mandatory insurance purchase I don't think it should be the federal government
D) If there is going to be a mandatory insurance purchase I'd be more inclined to accept it if it were the state government
E) I still don't think I should be compelled to buy insurance but realize that everyone should

It's quite an odd and vicious cycle.

Also I think insurance should be purchasable across state lines and that the competition could drive down prices. I also wonder if packaging insurance like mortgages were bundled and sold leading up to the sub-prime mortgage crisis (and causing a lot of it) would help offset a lot of the issues here if regulated properly. Let the government get into the insurance industry for lower prices which could help insurance companies keep their prices down (which are ridiculously inflated and have the tail wagging the dog as far as they run the hospitals). I don't really care if the government is a player in the insurance market but they should under no circumstances be the single player.

Just a lot of random thoughts on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm conflicted on the individual mandate as a matter of public policy but don't think that has anything to do with the constitutionality of it. I think this is the major reason why the mandate is so contentious. Obviously it would be beneficial if everyone had insurance, the question is how to reach that point within the boundaries of the constitution. We shouldn't just discard our laws for a matter of efficiency and ease.

I guess I have an interesting opinion:

A) I don't think I should be compelled to buy insurance if I don't want to
B) I think that everyone does need to have insurance
C) If there is going to be a mandatory insurance purchase I don't think it should be the federal government
D) If there is going to be a mandatory insurance purchase I'd be more inclined to accept it if it were the state government
E) I still don't think I should be compelled to buy insurance but realize that everyone should

It's quite an odd and vicious cycle.

Also I think insurance should be purchasable across state lines and that the competition could drive down prices. I also wonder if packaging insurance like mortgages were bundled and sold leading up to the sub-prime mortgage crisis (and causing a lot of it) would help offset a lot of the issues here if regulated properly. Let the government get into the insurance industry for lower prices which could help insurance companies keep their prices down (which are ridiculously inflated and have the tail wagging the dog as far as they run the hospitals). I don't really care if the government is a player in the insurance market but they should under no circumstances be the single player.

Just a lot of random thoughts on the issue.
Click to expand...

At least you are rational. Pos rep. for that!
 
jhmd2000 said:
Do you lie in real life too, or just on the message board?
Click to expand...

Huh? I remember posting how it was a weak case that shouldn't have been prosecuted and you posted a long rebuttal about how the facts supported a conviction easily.
 
The health care law is expensive and the politically easiest way to get it paid for was by getting young people to subsidize old people's coverage. Old people should pay for their own coverage. Young people are not going to get benefits like Social Security, Medicare etc because old people are bankrupting those programs for future generations through underfunding. This is another example of old people not paying for their consumption of goods and services and getting young people who will not get a chance to access those services to foot the bill. Health care is too expensive in America and its the AMA, insurance, and drug companies fault. The individual mandate is a bad idea, part of an overall bad plan that preserves health care being more expensive than anywhere in the world without benefiting in quality.
 
I hope the court rules against Obama. There are some things I like in the legislation but they gave far too much to big business. I want to see legit health care reform, not this. This will do nothing to stop the growing disaster that is health care in this country. It's like putting a bandaid on a stab wound. This court tends to rule the opposite of how I feel when it comes to big issues. So Obama probably has nothing to worry about.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Huh? I remember posting how it was a weak case that shouldn't have been prosecuted and you posted a long rebuttal about how the facts supported a conviction easily.
Click to expand...

They did support a conviction, but that doesn't mean the jury is going to convict a guilty person.

Signed,

Orenthal James
 
Steels said:
The health care law is expensive and the politically easiest way to get it paid for was by getting young people to subsidize old people's coverage. Old people should pay for their own coverage. Young people are not going to get benefits like Social Security, Medicare etc because old people are bankrupting those programs for future generations through underfunding. This is another example of old people not paying for their consumption of goods and services and getting young people who will not get a chance to access those services to foot the bill. Health care is too expensive in America and its the AMA, insurance, and drug companies fault. The individual mandate is a bad idea, part of an overall bad plan that preserves health care being more expensive than anywhere in the world without benefiting in quality.
Click to expand...

Very much true. The baby boomers are a giant puppy on the tit of an old mother that is just about out of milk. I get that they will do what is best for them (as that is a human predisposition), but it still stinks.
 
DeacMan said:
Very much true. The baby boomers are a giant puppy on the tit of an old mother that is just about out of milk. I get that they will do what is best for them (as that is a human predisposition), but it still stinks.
Click to expand...

I agree with the spirit of this but not the detail. The law allows for age bad rating so the old pay more and the analysis thats been done has largely suggested there isn't an indirect age subsidy (i.e. the old are paying their way on this). There is of course a huge health subsidy (as there is with all incurance) and a very large gender subsidy. Men will be subsidizing women.

That being said, we do have a generational war coming. I just dont think the ACA is part of it. I ignored the impact of the medicare cuts to the funding piece as they will not materialize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top