Obamacare Insurance Mandate Ruled Constitutional

[Buffett and Colbert]

I have no real comments on its constitutionality, but big props for basically getting to where we were in 1911, Americans.

[Conserative Morality]

yeah im not all that fond of proving that the sky is blue.

if you dont pay enough attention to politics to know what the republicans are campaigning on im not interested in spoon feeding it to you.

Problem being, of course, that the sky is always blue. In fact, where I live, the sky is rarely blue. Common 'knowledge' is rarely commonly known, or for that matter, actually fact.

[Consaria]

Wow, what a-holes. I always know that it was constitutional, just a bad bill. What happens where the insurance companies say, "Health insurance is now $50,000 a year!" I can safely say that I'd rather have single payer than this.

[Buffett and Colbert]

yeah im not all that fond of proving that the sky is blue.

if you dont pay enough attention to politics to know what the republicans are campaigning on im not interested in spoon feeding it to you.

Problem being, of course, that the sky is always blue. In fact, where I live, the sky is rarely blue. Common 'knowledge' is rarely commonly known, or for that matter, actually fact.

The obvious solution would to get your head out of the clouds and get out of Maryland.

[Ashmoria]

yeah im not all that fond of proving that the sky is blue.

if you dont pay enough attention to politics to know what the republicans are campaigning on im not interested in spoon feeding it to you.

Problem being, of course, that the sky is always blue. In fact, where I live, the sky is rarely blue. Common 'knowledge' is rarely commonly known, or for that matter, actually fact.

like i just said to dyakovo. if you would rather believe that the republicans are proposing repealing health care reform and going back to denying babies insurance, go ahead. it certainly doesnt make them look better so its better for me if you believe it.

[Conserative Morality]

like i just said to dyakovo. if you would rather believe that the republicans are proposing repealing health care reform and going back to denying babies insurance, go ahead. it certainly doesnt make them look better so its better for me if you believe it.

You know, ignoring scientific evidence also doesn't make them look all that well either, but they still do it. It wouldn't matter if the Government was repealing the minimum wage, if the PR spin and animosity for certain ideals and terms is strong enough, you can get people to screw themselves and their families over any number of times.

[Ashmoria]

like i just said to dyakovo. if you would rather believe that the republicans are proposing repealing health care reform and going back to denying babies insurance, go ahead. it certainly doesnt make them look better so its better for me if you believe it.

You know, ignoring scientific evidence also doesn't make them look all that well either, but they still do it. It wouldn't matter if the Government was repealing the minimum wage, if the PR spin and animosity for certain ideals and terms is strong enough, you can get people to screw themselves and their families over any number of times.

a number of the tea party candidates ARE running on doing away with the minimum wage....

it is very sad that instead of another 2 years of progress we are looking at 2 years of holding onto the gains we have already made against a tide of republican stupid.

[Conserative Morality]

a number of the tea party candidates ARE running on doing away with the minimum wage....

Thank you for reinforcing my point, care to find that link now?

[Greed and Death]

Thing is, I've never heard a Republican candidate say any such thing, and being (officially at least) a member of the party I get a crap load of mail from them...

well when you see it, you will know what im talking about.

i doesnt much matter, the president will veto any repeal of health care reform.

Uh huh and the republicans will respond by attaching the repeal to the budget.
No budget = no subsidies. For health care or anything.

[Ashmoria]

well when you see it, you will know what im talking about.

i doesnt much matter, the president will veto any repeal of health care reform.

Uh huh and the republicans will respond by attaching the repeal to the budget.
No budget = no subsidies. For health care or anything.

yeah

that shutting down the government didnt work all that well in '94 it wont go over well in '11

[Greed and Death]

I find several flaws with the court's ruling.
They fail to differentiate those who can afford and those who can not afford out of pocket care.
Furthermore I find the courts logic, Health care must be mandated because the bill that mandates its care sets conditions requiring it to be mandated, to be circular.

[Waldo followers]

yea its constitutional
but will it be good?
for the welfare guys yes

[Greed and Death]

Uh huh and the republicans will respond by attaching the repeal to the budget.
No budget = no subsidies. For health care or anything.

yeah

that shutting down the government didnt work all that well in '94 it wont go over well in '11

Yeah because you know the Republicans lost congress immediately, and have never again been allowed in the white house since '96.
Also the advantage in this case is if they shut down the government, the mandate would still be present, but the subsidies to help afford the mandate would not be. Namely an idea situation for Republican fear mongering of see told you the poor are being taxed for not being insured.

[Ashmoria]

yeah

that shutting down the government didnt work all that well in '94 it wont go over well in '11

Yeah because you know the Republicans lost congress immediately, and have never again been allowed in the white house since '96.
Also the advantage in this case is if they shut down the government, the mandate would still be present, but the subsidies to help afford the mandate would not be. Namely an idea situation for Republican fear mongering of see told you the poor are being taxed for not being insured.

its not in effect in '11

[Greed and Death]

Yeah because you know the Republicans lost congress immediately, and have never again been allowed in the white house since '96.
Also the advantage in this case is if they shut down the government, the mandate would still be present, but the subsidies to help afford the mandate would not be. Namely an idea situation for Republican fear mongering of see told you the poor are being taxed for not being insured.

its not in effect in '11

Then they will wait until '14.
I am thinking with Howard Dean's logic in this case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 73218.html

[Ashmoria]

its not in effect in '11

Then they will wait until '14.
I am thinking with Howard Dean's logic in this case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 73218.html

i dont think it will be but it is the minor part of health care reform or the repeal of it.

i dont LOVE the mandate but the system doesnt work without it. how can you justify letting people go without insurance and then requiring the insurance companies to take them when they get an illness they cant afford?

what i DONT want is for the 2 parties to keep playing hot potato with the welfare of the country. the republicans have worked hard to make sure we DONT recover economically so that they will win in november. i dont want the democrats to do the same so that they regain congress in '12.

[You-Gi-Owe]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/obamacare-passes-its-first-test/?hp

The article outlines a pretty diverse range of view points from various blogs. Basically the judge ruled that healthcare is a unique industry. Since the ER won't refuse a sick person we can't opt out of healthcare unless we air home and die. Everyone is bound to need healthcare at somepoint. And actually those without insurance are more likely to need it because they don't catch symptoms early. So since we will use or at leat are very,very,very likely to use, healthcare much like we use or might use the police why shouldn't we be mandated to have insurance to pay for it much like our axes go to the police. We shift the burden of pay to earlier rather than later, and in the process will save mony because preventive cre is cheaper.

Sowhat foes NSG think of health care reform,s constitioninality?

IMHO, the judge is if full of it.

Figures, a Clinton appointee.

[Greed and Death]

Then they will wait until '14.
I am thinking with Howard Dean's logic in this case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 73218.html

i dont think it will be but it is the minor part of health care reform or the repeal of it.

i dont LOVE the mandate but the system doesnt work without it. how can you justify letting people go without insurance and then requiring the insurance companies to take them when they get an illness they cant afford?

what i DONT want is for the 2 parties to keep playing hot potato with the welfare of the country. the republicans have worked hard to make sure we DONT recover economically so that they will win in november. i dont want the democrats to do the same so that they regain congress in '12.

As Dean said the mandate is not necessary, from his state's example with children's health care.
The people who cheat the system are in such a minority they barely affect the aggregate.

[Cobhanglica]

The enemy is advancing.

[Ashmoria]

i dont think it will be but it is the minor part of health care reform or the repeal of it.

i dont LOVE the mandate but the system doesnt work without it. how can you justify letting people go without insurance and then requiring the insurance companies to take them when they get an illness they cant afford?

what i DONT want is for the 2 parties to keep playing hot potato with the welfare of the country. the republicans have worked hard to make sure we DONT recover economically so that they will win in november. i dont want the democrats to do the same so that they regain congress in '12.

As Dean said the mandate is not necessary, from his state's example with children's health care.
The people who cheat the system are in such a minority they barely affect the aggregate.

in any case the price of the mandate vs the price of insurance is so lopsided that anyone not wanting insurance is far better off taking the fine. that alone should test the validity of dean's theory.

[Greed and Death]

As Dean said the mandate is not necessary, from his state's example with children's health care.
The people who cheat the system are in such a minority they barely affect the aggregate.

in any case the price of the mandate vs the price of insurance is so lopsided that anyone not wanting insurance is far better off taking the fine. that alone should test the validity of dean's theory.

I find the idea of paying a fine for the following of my religious beliefs repulsive.

[Herskerstad]

Yeah, putting the bureaucrats in with the insurance company salesmen to battle out the treatment for the individual in a game where cash is king will certainly not lead down a path of disaster in both financial and health care related terms.

I am all for socialized health care, but it has to be affordable by the state and it IS expensive to implement and sustain. Whereas a private sector with some government guidelines might do things as good if not even better. Among the things this bill does is evaluate via said bureaucrats the standard of the consisting health insurance for said individual, demand people pay for a new program if they see it fit and to any dissidents of this norm they can fine in various different ways. The way they plan to cut spending is to reduce the sustainable growth rate, basically how much doctors are paid, but the last five time they have attempted to do this they did not lower it, in fact, they voted to raise it. They also seem to have calculated the cost for this bill the same way they calculated the cost for medicare. Which only ended up being tenfold as expensive as it was first considered to be.

The only norm that should be implemented for the time being is to read a bill before it is passed. It more or less started with the patriot act, but for the last two years it has been going on at an accelerated rate and this is by no standard a good norm. Nor is politically driven legislation in the same package said to aid rescue workers of 9/11.

The change has just begun, a shame it looks like a shitty change.

[Doitzel]

IMHO, the judge is if full of it.

Well-put! You convinced me.

[Saiwania]

I still will not pay a damn dime into it.

So you plan on going to jail for tax evasion?

I'd become Amish before falling under their collectivist tyranny. I'll hold out as long as I can. This is not the country I once loved and I may very well renounce it one of those days. This largely depends on how harshly persecuted I am on this. I feel I'm able to wait it out until it gets defunded, repealed or what have you if the Republicans take over. The early Christians were persecuted by the Romans and yet they prevailed in the long term. This is how the government wants to control your life, if you can't afford private insurance you are coerced into taking government subsidies and once you're pulled in, you have to live by their rules on how to live. No more individual choice. It is simply something I won't believe in and will stand by on principle. I bet despite all the mandated fines, the IRS will never collect as much as they would've thought. People in the know will exploit any and all loopholes or they will find it cheaper to accept the fine than take insurance and it'll be a colossal failure. Obamacare will not drive down the cost over time. This is the same failed logic of thinking that more taxes on the rich will collect more revenue when they simply move with their feet.

[Greed and Death]

I still will not pay a damn dime into it.

So you plan on going to jail for tax evasion?

the law specifically forbids jail time and felony tax evasion charges.
Leaving only Misdemeanor tax evasion, basically a fine up to 5,000.
Though refusal to pay that could result in jail time.