• 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!

So Obamacare is going well.

The Court can set the parameters.

You scoff at the uniqueness of industry without coming up with anything comparable.
 
RJKarl said:
The Court can set the parameters.

You scoff at the uniqueness of industry without coming up with anything comparable.
Click to expand...

You have four votes on the court at the moment to regulate anything in the name of economic activity. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the inherent limitations that may be placed going forward.

And I don't scoff at anything. I think this is a very close call. As I have said repeatedly, I don't buy the inaction vs action differential for a moment. I am persuaded by the everyone acts eventually argument, but I don't think you have 5 votes on the court who are at the moment. The industry being unique isn't going to get Kennedy's vote. My opinion which may not be widespread is that the uniqueness argument isn't the winner. I would be hammering home the fact that it is only unique in terms of the eventuality of use, but it isn't unique in that it's not asking for an expansion of economic activity due to its uniqueness -- that HC still fits under the economic activity test.

Perhaps if this is struck down it will energize the base.
 
Last edited:
Eagles_Legendz said:
You have four votes on the court at the moment to regulate anything in the name of economic activity. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the inherent limitations that may be placed going forward.

And I don't scoff at anything. I think this is a very close call. As I have said repeatedly, I don't buy the inaction vs action differential for a moment. I am persuaded by the everyone acts eventually argument, but I don't think you have 5 votes on the court who are at the moment. The industry being unique isn't going to get Kennedy's vote. My opinion which may not be widespread is that the uniqueness argument isn't the winner. I would be hammering home the fact that it is only unique in terms of the eventuality of use, but it isn't unique in that it's not asking for an expansion of economic activity due to its uniqueness -- that HC still fits under the economic activity test.

Perhaps if this is struck down it will energize the base.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Both sides could spin either result in their favor. Any time I've heard disgruntled liberals consider not voting for Obama, they're jolted back to reality by his ability to tilt the Court. Nate Silver just came out with a piece showing this is the most conservative court since a measure of it started in 1937.

If the law is overturned, it could lead to a reenergized liberal base and maybe some Congressional pickups and a movement for new health care reform.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Are you saying I am wrong because you can find some prices the government drove up even worse than they drove up health care? I have been saying that health care has become more unaffordable since it became free for a lot of people. I just showed with true cases that normal people used to be able to afford some of the health care things they can no longer afford. You just showed that normal people also cannot afford a house or a Wake Forest education. You did not refute anything. You just showed that government intervention can screw up other things. Government has not interferred nearly as much with computers and they are less expensive now than they used to be. Forty years ago the pediatrician charged a few dollars per visit, cash. Today the copay is $30. You can't really believe that health care is not more unaffordable.
Click to expand...

Of course costs have gone up. We have a subsidized system. Same thing with education. Credit flows. Demand rises. Costs go "up". Or subsidies flow, people aren't responsible for the cost. The cost goes up.

Here's an interesting discussion - civil too. Have to wade in a couple of minutes.

[video]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46890840#46890948[/video]
 
And another intersting take on how we ended up with this bill. Wade in about halfway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46890840#46889961

Howard Dean - "If you look at the approach that was taken to make this bill, they brought every single special interest into the White House and gave them something in return for something else. The individual mandate is what the insurance companies got and I think it was a terrible mistake."

Morning Joe - "And that was another galling thing. Throughout this process we heard Nancy Pelosi saying "we are going to take these insurance companies down" and "the white house is being tough against the insurance companies". And at the end this individual mandate is forcing Americans to buy health insurance from the insurance companies and the huge health insurance companies that are making all the money got exactly what they wanted."

Howard Dean - "As our experience in Vermont has proved for 20 years. You don't need an individual mandate to maintain an orderly insurance market. And that is a fact."
 
WakeandBake said:
Not things, healthcare. The health care that's going to be given to you whether you have the money or insurance to cover it or not.
Click to expand...

1 - Healthcare is only required to be given to me when I have a medical emergency. That's the Federal law (passed when Reagan was in office). A state could pass a more expansive law. And even then it is not "given" to me. I am still charged for it. I just may not be able to pay the bill.

2 - Because some people can't pay the bills resulting from the legally mandated care they receive, that obviously drives up costs for hospitals that offer emergency care.

3 - That in turn drives up costs at those hospitals for care generally (to subsidize those who don't pay).

4 - That in turn drives up the cost of insurance for those who elect to buy it.

5 - If I don't believe I'll "need" healthcare because I'm young or otherwise healthy and elect not to buy insurance that remains my choice. I'm taking a risk that I'll get sick or hurt and have to pay out of pocket for treatment I can afford, or may not be able to get treatment because I can't get it until I have an emergency, that I may die as a result of not being treated until I have an emergency (when it is too late perhaps to help me) or otherwise may not be able to pay for emergency care once it has to be given to me and then face all sundry of bad issues.

6 - Those who have health insurance are also making a choice. They are willing to pay for the insurance so they can get care.

Those who choose not to buy insurance are taking a risk today. They are taking a risk that they will not be able to get care they may need to remain healthy or to even survive. And, not to miss this important point, those who cannot afford to buy insurance won't be required to buy it under this law anyway.

Again, the individual mandate is not constitutional. 70% of Americans don't approve of it. 70%. Not because the idea of cheaper insurance is a bad thing, but because we do not want the Federal government dictating that we have to buy something in an otherwise elective market. Personally it is bad for me and you and others who buy insurance. I get that point. I don't like it. But that doesn't mean those who elect not to protect themselves should be forced into a market in which they do not want to participate. That choice they are making comes with risks to them.

Again, you can come up with all sorts of ways to make this law work under the Federal constitution. And striking down this law may end up speeding up the move to some sort of universal system. They didn't elect to do that. They elected a system that is fundamentally flawed under the law of the land.
 
DeacMan said:
1 - Healthcare is only required to be given to me when I have a medical emergency. That's the Federal law (passed when Reagan was in office). A state could pass a more expansive law. And even then it is not "given" to me. I am still charged for it. I just may not be able to pay the bill.

2 - Because some people can't pay the bills resulting from the legally mandated care they receive, that obviously drives up costs for hospitals that offer emergency care.

3 - That in turn drives up costs at those hospitals for care generally (to subsidize those who don't pay).

4 - That in turn drives up the cost of insurance for those who elect to buy it.

5 - If I don't believe I'll "need" healthcare because I'm young or otherwise healthy and elect not to buy insurance that remains my choice. I'm taking a risk that I'll get sick or hurt and have to pay out of pocket for treatment I can afford, or may not be able to get treatment because I can't get it until I have an emergency, that I may die as a result of not being treated until I have an emergency (when it is too late perhaps to help me) or otherwise may not be able to pay for emergency care once it has to be given to me and then face all sundry of bad issues.

6 - Those who have health insurance are also making a choice. They are willing to pay for the insurance so they can get care.

Those who choose not to buy insurance are taking a risk today. They are taking a risk that they will not be able to get care they may need to remain healthy or to even survive. And, not to miss this important point, those who cannot afford to buy insurance won't be required to buy it under this law anyway.

Again, the individual mandate is not constitutional. 70% of Americans don't approve of it. 70%. Not because the idea of cheaper insurance is a bad thing, but because we do not want the Federal government dictating that we have to buy something in an otherwise elective market. Personally it is bad for me and you and others who buy insurance. I get that point. I don't like it. But that doesn't mean those who elect not to protect themselves should be forced into a market in which they do not want to participate. That choice they are making comes with risks to them.

Again, you can come up with all sorts of ways to make this law work under the Federal constitution. And striking down this law may end up speeding up the move to some sort of universal system. They didn't elect to do that. They elected a system that is fundamentally flawed under the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Approval rates have nothing to do with Constitutionality. Many legal scholars have determined it is Constitutional, go back and read the thread.

I'm quite sure there are many Americans who do not want to have to buy health insurance because they would rather have the "freedom" to risk their lives and run up our health care costs. I say, fuck them. I'm all for freedom, I love freedom, but that ain't freedom, Sally.
 
WakeandBake said:
Approval rates have nothing to do with Constitutionality. Many legal scholars have determined it is Constitutional, go back and read the thread.

I'm quite sure there are many Americans who do not want to have to buy health insurance because they would rather have the "freedom" to risk their lives and run up our health care costs. I say, fuck them. I'm all for freedom, I love freedom, but that ain't freedom, Sally.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line, Missy?

And there are plenty of con law scholars who think this law is bunko - perhaps even a majority of the Supreme Court.
 
DeacMan said:
Where do you draw the line, Missy?

And there are plenty of con law scholars who think this law is bunko - perhaps even a majority of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I draw it at health care, sweet tits. Completely ridiculous exercise in 'freedom fighting' simply for political gain. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
 
WakeandBake said:
I draw it at health care, sweet tits. Completely ridiculous exercise in 'freedom fighting' simply for political gain. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard to write a law that works, flappy cakes? The reason we ended up with the mandate in the first place is because the insurance companies wanted it. How "liberal". You can come up with two or three easy constructions that get us to universal Federally sponsored healthcare if you think that's a smart thing to do. The Dems had the "votes" seeing as how both houses of congress and the oval office were under their control. Instead they passed a law few people like that goes beyond previously recognized authority to regulate commerce. Not exactly bright. And because they didn't bother to include a severability clause into the law - for God only know what reason since that is in almost every law congress passes, much less one with 2,700 pages - the whole thing may get struck down. Seeing as how there are parts of the law most Americans would prefer to keep, that ain't bright.
 
Making insurance MORE expensive and REQUIRING everyone to give money to FOR-PROFIT insurance companies was a good idea? LOL

Thank God this piece of crap is going to be struck down. Back to the drawing board, Democrat insurance industry pawns. I can't believe people fall for this feel-good crap.
 
DeacMan said:
Why is it so hard to write a law that works, flappy cakes? The reason we ended up with the mandate in the first place is because the insurance companies wanted it. How "liberal". You can come up with two or three easy constructions that get us to universal Federally sponsored healthcare if you think that's a smart thing to do. The Dems had the "votes" seeing as how both houses of congress and the oval office were under their control. Instead they passed a law few people like that goes beyond previously recognized authority to regulate commerce. Not exactly bright. And because they didn't bother to include a severability clause into the law - for God only know what reason since that is in almost every law congress passes, much less one with 2,700 pages - the whole thing may get struck down. Seeing as how there are parts of the law most Americans would prefer to keep, that ain't bright.
Click to expand...

This was answered several pages back, fishy puss. The discourse on this issue and most others has drifted so far to the right that many the Dems in congress are center to center-right. The so-called Reagan dems or Blue dogs or whatever - they would never have passed a single-payer universal system no matter how much practical sense it makes because the hyperbole about 'freedom' and 'liberty' to be a jackwagon who doesn't carry coverage resonates with the unwashed masses and a few "liberty or death' types.
 
blackgold said:
Making insurance MORE expensive and REQUIRING everyone to give money to FOR-PROFIT insurance companies was a good idea? LOL

Thank God this piece of crap is going to be struck down. Back to the drawing board, Democrat insurance industry pawns. I can't believe people fall for this feel-good crap.
Click to expand...

They think they are getting money for nothing and their hard penis pills for free.
 
In other words, tuna melt, they didn't have the votes to do something legitimate. So they did something that likely will be found unconstitutional.

And while you may draw the line at health care, most folks aren't so naive to think the government wouldn't use the "mandate" in some other fashion they determined met their needs.
 
DeacMan said:
In other words, tuna melt, they didn't have the votes to do something legitimate. So they did something that likely will be found unconstitutional.

And while you may draw the line at health care, most folks aren't so naive to think the government wouldn't use the "mandate" in some other fashion they determined met their needs.
Click to expand...

They got almost everyone covered, pork loin. You and I are already paying for the uninsured when they ultimately use our health care system - which they all do or will do. It's not to be a nice friendly hippie, it is to square the payment for the goods/services provided to them. It is commerce that every American participates in, and Congress can regulate it.

We are the government. You, me, our friends and neighbors. It's not the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain. What is the big scary gubmint going to do with the mandate to harm us?
 
WakeandBake said:
They got almost everyone covered, pork loin. You and I are already paying for the uninsured when they ultimately use our health care system - which they all do or will do. It's not to be a nice friendly hippie, it is to square the payment for the goods/services provided to them. It is commerce that every American participates in, and Congress can regulate it.

We are the government. You, me, our friends and neighbors. It's not the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain. What is the big scary gubmint going to do with the mandate to harm us?
Click to expand...

Force productive citizens to subsidize healthcare for deadbeats, illegal aliens, and other assorted malcontents, while paying higher premiums for their own healthcare, which is already overpriced?
 
blackgold said:
Force productive citizens to subsidize healthcare for deadbeats, illegal aliens, and other assorted malcontents, while paying higher premiums for their own healthcare, which is already overpriced?
Click to expand...

You are already paying for them now, Copernicus. :facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top