Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obamacare Loses In Court Again  
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

The provision requiring everyone to purchase health insurance mandated by the HHS gets shot down in Court again.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...a-healthcare-idUSTRE77B4J320110812

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit found that it did not pass muster under that clause or under the power of Congress to tax. The administration has said the penalty for not buying healthcare coverage is akin to a tax.

"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion.



On to the Supreme Court where I'm betting it will suffer the same fate.

99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Let's look at it for what it is.....

45 million Americans lack health care coverage

That is crazy for a 1st world industrialized country.......

Whats wrong with asking for the average fat ass unhealthy American to exude personal responsibility and pay for their own healthcare

As those with health insurance are already footing the bill....

It's one thing to repeal....but what do you do for the 45 million uninsured Americans?



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21552 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
The provision requiring everyone to purchase health insurance mandated by the HHS gets shot down in Court again.

Which is pretty much meaningless, I guess, since it's going to the Supreme Court anyway.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8871 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 1):
Let's look at it for what it is.....

45 million Americans lack health care coverage

That is crazy for a 1st world industrialized country.......

Whats wrong with asking for the average fat ass unhealthy American to exude personal responsibility and pay for their own healthcare

As those with health insurance are already footing the bill....

It's one thing to repeal....but what do you do for the 45 million uninsured Americans?

Why put them on welfare, it sounds nicer, we will all still pay, healthcare will go further out of reach, for more and more people, the insurance companies, medical, drug companies will get richer, of course they are people, ask Romney. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer,a Republican's wet dream.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8823 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2106 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):

Which is pretty much meaningless, I guess, since it's going to the Supreme Court anyway.

Where it will be shot down again.

Look, I support the idea of an individual mandate. But we live under a system of Constitutional Law, and our revered imbecile-in-chief, who was promoted as this brilliant constitutional scholar, didn't think that maybe, if you want to do something that is not allowed by the Constitution, you should pass an amendment to that effect.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3048 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2080 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
The provision requiring everyone to purchase health insurance mandated by the HHS gets shot down in Court again.

Which in my opinion should not be so. Let Joe Average pick healthcare if he wishes, but don't come crying to hospitals when he finds out that his healthcare cannot cover a procedure.

Obamacare lost a battle (and one that should never happened) but the war still rages on. If I were to poll people, I think people would accept the healthcare law as long as they aren't forced to choose a healthcare or a penalty for failure to do so.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8823 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):

Obamacare lost a battle (and one that should never happened) but the war still rages on. If I were to poll people, I think people would accept the healthcare law as long as they aren't forced to choose a healthcare or a penalty for failure to do so.

Which frankly would only work if hospitals were not required to treat you if you don't have the ability to pay.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8490 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Conservatives will always complain about high taxes and how the rich are getting shafted even if taxes are at a fifty year low. Americans have among the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world and America it the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care. A healthier population means more people working and therefore more pay into the system. A large population that cannot get treatment for a condition is not American exceptionalism. I think I can pay a little more in evil taxis to insure a healthier population.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8823 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2050 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 10):
Conservatives will always complain about high taxes and how the rich are getting shafted even if taxes are at a fifty year low.

Then explain why the current tax rates (or damned close to them - the pre-Bush tax cut rates) produced the highest revenues ever received by the Federal government. The old tax rates of the Eisenhower years were even more full of loopholes than today.

Also explain away how the wealthy in the US pay a larger share of taxes relative to their revenue than any other country in the OECD, including such countries so beloved by Liberals as Sweden, Denmark, or France.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Also explain away how the wealthy in the US pay a larger share of taxes relative to their revenue than any other country in the OECD, including such countries so beloved by Liberals as Sweden, Denmark, or France.

This is probably because the income distribution in the United States is also very lopsided--there is much more income disparity in the United States.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8823 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

Quoting N867DA (Reply 12):
This is probably because the income distribution in the United States is also very lopsided--there is much more income disparity in the United States.

Read what I said:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
the wealthy in the US pay a larger share of taxes relative to their revenue than any other country in the OECD

1. Share of taxes of the richest 10% 2. Share of market income of the richest 10% 3. Ratio of shares for richest 10% (1/2)
Australia.....................................36.8.....................................28.6.....................................1.29
Austria.....................................28.5.....................................26.1.....................................1.1
Belgium .....................................25.4.....................................27.1.....................................0.94
Canada.....................................35.8.....................................29.3.....................................1.22
Czech Republic.....................................34.3.....................................29.4.....................................1.17
Denmark.....................................26.2.....................................25.7.....................................1.02
Finland.....................................32.3.....................................26.9..................................... 1.2
France .....................................28..................................... 25.5..................................... 1.1
Germany .....................................31.2 .....................................29.2 .....................................1.07
Iceland .....................................21.6 .....................................24 .....................................0.9
Ireland .....................................39.1 .....................................30.9 .....................................1.26
Italy .....................................42.2 .....................................35.8 .....................................1.18
Japan .....................................28.5 .....................................28.1 .....................................1.01
Korea .....................................27.4 .....................................23.4 .....................................1.17
Luxembourg .....................................30.3 .....................................26.4 .....................................1.15
Netherlands .....................................35.2 .....................................27.5 .....................................1.28
New Zealand .....................................35.9 .....................................30.3 .....................................1.19
Norway .....................................27.4 .....................................28.9 .....................................0.95
Poland .....................................28.3 .....................................33.9 .....................................0.84
Slovak Republic .....................................32 .....................................28 .....................................1.14
Sweden .....................................26.7 .....................................26.6 .....................................1
Switzerland .....................................20.9 .....................................23.5 .....................................0.89
United Kingdom .....................................38.6 .....................................32.3 .....................................1.2
United States .....................................45.1 .....................................33.5 .....................................1.35

OECD-24 .....................................31.6 .....................................28.4 .....................................1.11



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in its 207-page opinion.

Well done sirs.

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
On to the Supreme Court where I'm betting it will suffer the same fate.

Yep.


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
On to the Supreme Court where I'm betting it will suffer the same fate.

I'm betting the same thing..................................

[quote=WarRI1,reply=3]The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer

If I had a quarter for every time I've heard that "old saw" I'd be a millionaire by now !
Did you ever stop and wonder why so many poor people always seem to stay poor ? There are exceptions, but for the most part..............most poor people tend to do "poor things". Don't believe me ? Go to any poor neighborhood; ride through the alley and check all the trash cans; you will find: tons of beer bottles; ditto for whiskey bottles; tons of lottery ticket stubbs; they all have 42 inch (and up) TV's; many have Cadilacs, Humvee's, Toyota Avalons, etc. etc. etc. Most have fancy clothes, fancy jewelry, fancy this & that, but when it comes to saving 10 bucks from every pay check to retire on, well, they can't seem to be bothered with that; ( the "system" will pay ) So, I repeat......poor people do poor things; (and they tend to stay poor )

And "rich" people ? To start with, there really are only about 3 ways to become rich; No.1 is to "inherit it", No.2 is to have a lot of people working for you; No.3 is to have a lot of money working for you; ( or a combination of 1 & 2 )

Most "poor" people try to do it by playing the lotto, ( or going to Vegas )

How do you suppose all of those "nasty rich people" the Dems love to rave about "not paying their fair share" , ever managed to "get rich" to start with ? A lot of ways actually, but many of them started businesses; ( got a lot of people working for them ) ( see no.3 ) I'll give you just one example............Bill Gates; Bill was in such a hurry to "get rich" he even dropped out of college; ( he was losing too much money ) In just a very short time, not only did Bill become a multi-billionaire, he also hired a lot of "poor shmucks" ( right out of college ) and dozens of them also become at least millionaires. ( and they all bought a lot of "stuff", spent a lot of BUCKS ) all of which caused a lot of other folks to have a job, and I'm guessing even some of them became "rich" ! ( all because of Bill )


[quote=thegreatRDU,reply=1]45 million Americans lack health care coverage


I wonder where I've heard "this" before ? Does that mean that 45 million people who are "rich" should run out and buy it for them ? To start with, that's a very "questionable" number to prove; secondly, and far more to the point, there is one hell of a lot difference between "45 million who "lack" health care, and "45 million who never get any health care" !

A huge % of those who "lack health care" need to be re-classified into "don't bother to BUY health care" ( a few trips to any ER in any big city hospital will blow that "myth" right out of the water.

So.............for the very first time in American history, someone comes along and says, "everyone gotta buy health insurance" whether you want to or not; next year I suppose he'll want a new law that says.........everyone MUST get rich! ( Then our troubles will be all over ! ) Yeah man !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21552 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Look, I support the idea of an individual mandate. But we live under a system of Constitutional Law, and our revered imbecile-in-chief, who was promoted as this brilliant constitutional scholar, didn't think that maybe, if you want to do something that is not allowed by the Constitution, you should pass an amendment to that effect.

You don't seriously think that he knew the mandate was unconstitutional but pushed it anyway, do you? It's his opinion (and the opinion of his legal team) that it's not unconstitutional. You may not agree with that opinion, which is fine, but your opinion is not the only one (other courts have upheld the law, after all). You may even think that there was some creative interpretation used to reach that conclusion, but that's still not the same ballpark as saying "I know this is unconstitutional, but I'm going to do it anyway".

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
1. Share of taxes of the richest 10% 2. Share of market income of the richest 10%

This is a skewed statistic because there's a much larger gap between percentiles at the top of the scale than at the bottom (reflected in the US' relatively high Gini coefficient). Thus, the difference between the income and taxes of someone in the 98th percentile of income compared to someone in the 92nd percentile is going to be higher in the US than in the other countries you mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un..._Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

There's more difference between the 80th and 95th percentiles than there is between the 80th and the 40th percentile. That's going to mess with the distribution between the 90th and 95th, to say nothing of between the 95th and 99th (and thus the 90th and 99th).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
On to the Supreme Court where I'm betting it will suffer the same fate.

Since Bush stacked the court to the right, yes it probably will.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
revered imbecile-in-chief

It looks like you have zero respect for the office of the president. How can you be so un-American? You need to find someplace else to live if you have zero respect and love for this country.

So, this also means I don't need auto insurance. That is mandated, and, according to this ruling, it violates the Constitution.

Also, why didn't the right-wing media pick up on all the court decisions saying the health care bill is completely constitutional? Odd that was never picked up on. Just sayin'



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 40
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 1):
45 million Americans lack health care coverage

That is crazy for a 1st world industrialized country.......

No it is not. Who says health insurance is the end all be all to healthcare? There is no "proper" level of insurance, it's all relative to each individual case and even then there is subjectivity involved as to how much one really needs.

This idea that everyone needs 100% coverage in all things healthcare is part of the reason health care costs in the US are so high.

[Edited 2011-08-13 08:19:22]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
Thus, the difference between the income and taxes of someone in the 98th percentile of income compared to someone in the 92nd percentile is going to be higher in the US than in the other countries you mentioned.



And governemnt beruacracy is going to change that how exactly ? By scaring away and taking more from the producers ?

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives



So Michelle Obama could push for the mandate that we all buy the ZUMBA videos and get into shape to save the collective money ?? I can see it now Debbie Schultz , Oprah , Michelle and Dick Durbin all doing ZUMBA in a propaganda commercial.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Since Bush stacked the court to the right, yes it probably will.

You guys are playing with fire with Ruthie too. With her health and Obama looking at a tough re-election it could get worse get her out of there already.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39825 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
Since Bush stacked the court to the right, yes it probably will.

"stacked"?
He appointed two judges. Obama has appointed two judges.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
our revered imbecile-in-chief, who was promoted as this brilliant constitutional scholar

It's becoming more & more clear as to why Obama and his handlers has spend over $2 million dollar$ concealing his academic records and other information. I doubt Obama has ever read the Constitution. I know for sure Obama didn't read all 2500+ pages of his own health-care bill.

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 1):
Whats wrong with asking for the average fat ass unhealthy American to exude personal responsibility and pay for their own healthcare

That "fat ass unhealthy American" probably would have to spend at least $400 per month if they come on to an insurance plan in bad health. These "fat ass unhealthy American" that you hate so much are low-income and can't afford private insurance. I am very suspicious as to what the IRS would determine 'what someone can afford' for health insurance. Just ask any college bound student applying for federal financial aid about what the government determines what an individual can afford.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 14):
It looks like you have zero respect for the office of the president. How can you be so un-American? You need to find someplace else to live if you have zero respect and love for this country.

...and the comments like; "fat ass unhealthy American" isn't un-American and showing zero respect for this country?
  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 7):
Americans have among the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world and America it the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care.

This is a classic misapplication of statistics. The difference between the life expectancy in the U.S. and the "healthiest" nation in the world (Japan) is about 4 years or 5%. Between the United States and many EU nations, it's only 12 months or about 1%. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather live 1-5% longer than not, but how can you say the difference between the U.S. and other nations is all (or partly) due to their universal coverage and not a myriad of social, cultural, and geographic factors?

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 7):
A healthier population means more people working and therefore more pay into the system.

Our life expectancy is well beyond our average retirement age. The vast majority of Americans who work have coverage that they are satisfied with.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1867 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 1):
45 million Americans lack health care coverage

And if every one of those 45 million people without health care coverage got sick or injured, they would be treated!


User currently offlinegoblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1801 times:

Why doesn't the government let the responsibility of providing health care go to the states? they can raise sales tax maybe two percent here and maybe another percent or two somewhere else, whatever they need to. this way, health care is covered and it's more affordable for the poor than to make them pay for something they can't afford. I don;t think the burden of health care should be supported by the federal government but should be by the state government. after all, every state has already various tax pros and cons.

Essentially, make it the states' responsibility to provide it and make it the states' responsibility to find the $$ needed to do so OR those who can afford to do so can provide it for themselves. Just like air travel, if you can afford your own jet that's fine or you can use public airports...it's your choice.



From the airport with love
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting goblin211 (Reply 21):
Essentially, make it the states' responsibility to provide it and make it the states' responsibility to find the $$ needed to do so OR those who can afford to do so can provide it for themselves. Just like air travel, if you can afford your own jet that's fine or you can use public airports...it's your choice.

How about letting people go over state lines? Would be a good start in solving the real problem. Cost.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6287 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1789 times:

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
The provision requiring everyone to purchase health insurance mandated by the HHS gets shot down in Court again.

Perhaps my "health insurance" rates will be reduced now. After this farce got through a couple years ago my rate more than doubled and I don't believe in coincidence.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8217 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Those hoping for a Supreme Court rejection of this one part of the law are probably assuming that it will take down all parts of the law. Not necessarily.

The first group to be screwed will, ironically, be the private insurance companies who based their support on obtaining a lot of new customers. That is going to change.

The ability of employers dumping the costs of their nanny care also increases, and the desirability to tax those nanny care benefits as income (which is it) is also increased. The country cannot afford that loophole any more - not when there is talk of breaking down Medicare and Medicaid.

And it, of course, open the door for expanded government use of Medicare as a public option. I'm in favor of putting all government employees on Medicare - including politicians.

"Obamacare" essentially put additional reforms on aback shelf for a few years. A bad USSC decision will put it front and center.

And before celebrating that you need to check your employers P&L to see how much that nanny care cost takes from profits.


25 ltbewr : Although I would consider my political self to be left of center, I have to agree with this Circuit Court decision but more on economic reasons. To ma
26 Mir : Letting the health care regulation system become a race to the bottom would not be a good idea. -Mir
27 dxing : According to the Presidents men, and members of Congress, if that part of the funding is taken away from the law, it pretty much destroys the rest of
28 photopilot : Simple answer.... you throw em to the dogs. The USA is a dog-eat-dog world where people on the top don't give a rat's ass about anybody else. If the
29 StarAC17 : Not necesarily, the current court is very corpartist and this bill gives private insurance 45 million new customers, so I can see some judges voting
30 Mir : At least there'd still be some accountability for the residents of 49 states. -Mir
31 dxing : I don't see how. In most of these types of laws the government indemnifies itself by inserting language that says you can't sue them for their poor d
32 Post contains images Ken777 : So back to the nightmares? More medical bankruptcies - even by people with insurance? ANd do you think employers will forever provide you with nanny
33 Post contains images Superfly : Amen Ltbewr! My thoughts exactly! The penalties are what angers I the most about Obamacare and I DO support a national health-care policy that works.
34 Mir : You can vote in people who will make different decisions. -Mir
35 dxing : I see we never left fear mongering behind. The STATES, not the federal government. Yep, we've had such success at that over the course of the past 50
36 Ken777 : Which is why we don't have a public option, or a universal Medicare. We do have a system where paying for private insurance profits is more important
37 474218 : There is no such thing as "medical bankruptcy". You can file bankruptcy and list your medical bills, along with all your other bills. Bankruptcy is b
38 seb146 : The point I was trying to make was that for 8 years under Bush, when anyone would make any negative remarks about him or criticize him in any way, th
39 AGM100 : Obamacare is not about helping poor people ... it is about poor voters who once they believe its free will vote D no matter what . It is about bureauc
40 Mir : Still a better option than letting a handful of states set the standards for the rest of the country. More than a quarter of people in Texas don't ha
41 dfwrevolution : There is a difference between being unemployed and not having a job. Texas has a population of about 25 million but the workforce is closer to 15 mil
42 AGM100 : I did not have health insurance until I was 25 .... until I had kids. When you are young and healthy it is pretty easy to take out a cheap catastroph
43 EA CO AS : You forget (or have chosen to ignore) the fact that many of them lack it by PERSONAL CHOICE - they're young people who are healthy and have decided t
44 flanker : The states are the ones to decide what they want to do, not the federal government via mandates. If Illinois or California for example wants to adopt
45 Post contains links Ken777 : There isn't a specific chapter for a medical bankruptcy, but it is well known that US health care costs drive people into filing. And it is pretty we
46 474218 : They get treated. Hospitals (and the doctors on staff) are not allowed to turn way any person that is ill, they must be treated regardless of their f
47 Aaron747 : Not per se, but there are litanies of bankruptcies incurred by hard working, insured individuals who were otherwise on the up and up before bad luck
48 474218 : Does he have the 320K? o If yes, he should have to pay it. o If no, the hospitals and doctors will write it off. o If they write it off they will sti
49 Superfly : ...and the Chief Justice has only one vote just like all other 8 judges. No we were not told that. That is what has me angry about Obamacare, so far
50 Ken777 : And I gave a good link to "medical bankruptcies". There may not be a special chapter, but there is a mountain load of filings because of medical bill
51 Mir : They won't just write it off. They'll charge you and me extra to make up the shortfall. -Mir
52 474218 : Agreed! They have to make money from someone so those of us that have insurance have to pay extra for those that don't. But with Obama care they want
53 Ken777 : You sure about that? How do you figure it? Public option? Add them to Medicare? How are you going to pay for it?
54 474218 : How does the Federal Government pay for all the other programs that the Constitution does not authorize?
55 Post contains images Ken777 : Like NASA? Air Force? (The Constitution provides for an Army and a Navy - the Marines slip under the Navy, but no Air Force. .) NIH? CDC? CIA? FBI?
56 ual777 : You must have zero respect and love for the US too since you are disrespecting his First Amendment rights.....jeez.
57 EA CO AS : I'd argue that the Preamble provides for the entire DoD, plus all national intelligence agencies.
58 windy95 : Correct..This is one of the biggest problems. Lack of a la carte style plans and options. To many mandated coverages. Thanks for pointing that out...
59 PHLBOS : You are aware that one of the justices (Frank Hull) of the 3-judge panel that ruled against the individual mandate was appointed to the bench by Pres
60 Post contains links planespotting : Out of all the stupid, ignorant and moronic things that have been said in this thread (by both sides), for some reason I feel compelled to jump in and
61 474218 : So where are his collage "transcripts"?
62 Post contains images Ken777 : I tend to trust the Federal Government more than the State Governments. At a minimum the Federal Government provides for equal protection under the l
63 474218 : Good luck on getting 3/4 of the states to pass a Medical Care Amendment!
64 windy95 : Pass an amendment then and everything will be okay....Pretty simple...Otherwiase the mandate is not allowed.
65 Ken777 : Look how long it took women to get the right to vote. Think so? Ask African Americans who were pushed down with segregation for generations after sla
66 dxing : We don't have those because the President couldn't sell them even to his own party. A person seeking a license to practice medicine obtains that lice
67 planespotting : That is a fine question to ask, and I don't know, nor did I imply to know in my post. But what I can tell you is that he has not spent $2.6 million t
68 EA CO AS : Well aren't you just a bag of sunshine and daffodils today? The point being, Obamacare, in its present form, is completely irrelevant without a Const
69 windy95 : Without an amendment everything you argue is meaningless. The Constitution does not allow for the feds to mandate us to buy a product or service from
70 Post contains links 474218 : Not all presidents tried to quash there collage grades or even presidential a candidate. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08kerry.htm
71 planespotting : If the U.S. Supreme Court decides that, then yes. Until then, it's left to us to wonder. More than 10 judges have taken a stab at it so far and it's
72 Ken777 : And a lot of money was spent (especially by the private health insurance companies) to fight it. But don't worry - you have employer nanny care so yo
73 Mir : The preamble is just that. It doesn't provide for anything. Probably in a file in a storage facility somewhere, one belonging to his colleges. Do we
74 Dreadnought : Well that puts the "General Welfare" clause right in the trash bin, doesn't it? I think it comes down to intent. The only reason the Air Force is not
75 Aaron747 : Oh dear, Charles just stabbed constructionists straight through the sternum. Looks like we require judicial review of Constitutionality after all.
76 EA CO AS : Is that so? Last I checked, "...provide for the common defense," was part of the Preamble, and the Preamble establishes the intent of the Constitutio
77 474218 : Do we care? I don't know. But I do know the main stream media went so far as to falsify George Bush's military records but they havn't even even aske
78 Dreadnought : It's common sense, dude. Airplanes did not exist back then. Poverty, lack of health care, unequal results of wealth did.
79 Ken777 : And where was that "General Welfare" stuff? As was the ability to tax. Reality is that medicine, as we know it, did not exist then, just as planes di
80 EA CO AS : Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare clause: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to
81 Dreadnought : The military does not depend on the preamble for its existance. Providing for the military in all forms is clearly described in Article I Section 8.
82 Ken777 : And I have no doubt that if you asked them about a small pox vaccine they would have not hesitated to say, "Of course!". As for doctors back then, th
83 Mir : The power to provide for the general welfare comes from Article 1, Section 8, not from the preamble. The power to provide for the common defense also
84 Superfly : Those Presidents were not touted as brilliant constitutional scholars either. So where are those college transcripts? Exactly!
85 Post contains links dxing : And again you conveniently leave out the fact that the democratic party had all the votes they needed to pass a public option with no GOP support. Th
86 seb146 : Instead of pushing legislation through with zero debate and under everyone's noses, Obama and Democrats wanted a debate by the whole nation on someth
87 Mir : Right at the beginning: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the com
88 Post contains links and images Ken777 : Anatomy is anatomy. My wife used Grey's in her two years of anatomy and spent the same Saturday mornings in the med school dissecting rooms. Medical
89 windy95 : Those fall under interstate commerce...They do not provide welfare to individuals but to the "whole" country. Correct Which is the welfare of the cou
90 Mir : What "provide for the general welfare" means is debatable - what isn't debatable is that Congress is specifically granted the power to do it in Artic
91 Post contains links dxing : No they didn't. They wrote most of the bill in a backroom. Remember Speaker Pelosi, "We have to pass it before we can see what's in it."? President O
92 Ken777 : It's actually a direct quote from the neurosurgeon who did the discectomy & fusion on my neck last month. So what specifically did you sister-in-
93 dxing : That a physical therapist, or at least her husband, considered her just as qualified as herself. I would agree with her knowing how many years she sp
94 Mir : My point was that the preamble doesn't matter - you can't claim unconstitutionality based on the preamble, only on the text. Otherwise you'd have peo
95 Ken777 : I never said that a PT was as qualified, but in some areas they are trained as well, especially when they take courses like anatomy, physiology and m
96 redflyer : That number masks a lot of people who would otherwise have health insurance were it not for their own choices or circumstances created directly by th
97 dxing : Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole Constitution was ratified was in not? To include the preamble?
98 Superfly : Question: Has Matt Damon weighed in on all of this?
99 windy95 : What is not debatable is that it is talking about the United States not individuals. In no way does that one phrase grant unlimited power to the Fede
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US To Base Diplomats In Tehran Again.. posted Thu Jul 17 2008 00:48:32 by Beaucaire
10 Yr Old Stowaway In Trouble Again posted Mon Jul 7 2008 16:18:54 by SkyTaxi
Al Fayed Has His Day In Court posted Tue Feb 19 2008 05:42:57 by Baroque
Youtube Banned In Turkey, Again! posted Sat Jan 19 2008 04:38:35 by Bwest
Chaser Boys In Trouble Again posted Thu Oct 18 2007 04:19:07 by Melpax
Barmaid In Court For Serving Pine O Cleen Shots! posted Mon Sep 24 2007 08:36:28 by Melpax
Diapernaut Due In Court Today posted Fri Aug 24 2007 14:39:43 by Queso
Jeremy Clarkson Is In Trouble Again posted Tue May 22 2007 08:47:22 by 747438
Pope Sticks Sequined Foot In Mouth Again posted Tue May 15 2007 18:05:10 by Jaysit
Oh C'mon - Its Snowing In Seattle - Again posted Sat Jan 13 2007 21:17:44 by Searpqx