ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Frigidus]

What I hope will happen (but won't) is that the Supreme Court will say it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health care but leave the rest of the bill intact.

That literally cannot happen. If it does, no one will ever buy health insurance until I need it. That's why the mandate HAS to be there, or the clause regarding people with pre-existing conditions MUST be removed. They go together as a necessity.

Well, the Supreme Court could potentially rule that that is the only part of the bill that is unconstitutional, although realistically that would mean that neither party would support the bill any more and it would be promptly changed. That said, the destruction of the health insurance industry would be the best part of my theoretical situation that will never occur.

[john9blue]

Well, the Supreme Court could potentially rule that that is the only part of the bill that is unconstitutional, although realistically that would mean that neither party would support the bill any more and it would be promptly changed. That said, the destruction of the health insurance industry would be the best part of my theoretical situation that will never occur.

health insurance is a good thing though!

in theory...

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.staysmartstayhealthy.com/health_care_history_inthe_united_states


Health Insurance providers have always denied people with pre-existing conditions. That's for the entire 30 year Health Insurance History before the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid.


LIBERALS : 3
Night Strike : 0

Health insurance providers have been around for centuries but have appeared in different forms, e.g. mutual aid societies and other community-based charity groups, which many of the left and right would find admirable; however, in modern times, when they get a wiff of state intervention, they whoop like a raving pack of beasts and demand help from the seemingly altruistic politicians.

Why is this? Mostly because people have short memories and selective perception. "From cradle to the grave, please government, please."

Look at yourselves.

Here we continue to argue about X being unconstitutional or constitutional, or people should given X regardless of their history. Then, the argument devolves into market v. government intervention.


This really isn't the issue. Those in favor of government intervention have to convince others that the government is actually capable and willing to provide such benefits which would offset the costs. Those who oppose have to show that freer markets would prevail, and that the outcomes of government costs (or failure) actually offset the benefits.

This debate ITT, so far, has been ridiculous.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's my take on pre-existing conditions:


No insurance companies (non-profit and for-profit) should not be required to provide equal prices for those with pre-existing conditions. The risk is greater; therefore, the expected outlays of covering such problems will be greater. This is a fair system because it doesn't force healthier people to pay the marginal burden of those inclined to higher risks.

However, the government should not be involved in subsidizing loans, bailing out such companies, or providing any means of financial support to any insurance company.

In turn, we would have a system where the demand for mutual aid societies, or community-based organizations, would not be crowded out by government regulation. Instead, the demand for such services would be provided by the free market (in whatever form which could arise).


Ideally, all people should be covered by insurance at some arbitrarily determined, or "fair," rate--as established by the government; however, this position ignores reality. The government nor the bureaucracies have the knowledge or incentives to provide "fair" coverage to all human beings. Instead, they seek revenue for themselves. Furthermore, the crony capitalists may jump on this bandwagon to benefit if the government will cover the additional costs.


The ultimate paradox is this: by supporting further state intervention, these advocates in turn will incur the additional costs and consequences of state intervention. There is no easy answer for those supporting further state intervention, yet are willing to ignore the consequences. You can't have state-mandated regulations and a "socially just" society without the burdens of state and its unintended consequences and additional costs.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the free market were allowed to work, someone will find a way to provide a product to and make money from people who have pre-existing conditions that other providers won't cover.

No they won't - there's no profit margin there that's remotely affordable.

My good sir, I must disagree. Profit is not simply a monetary issue. Profit is also realized by the subjective gains, or increases in "good and fuzzy feelings," of those who establish organizations which would mitigate the costs of people who have pre-existing conditions.

These means of support can be provided by family, friends, or the community----if only these means were allowed to operate. Instead, with state intervention, these means are crowded out, or closed, because such means are easily substituted by a well-intended program from the government which would be financed by current taxpayers and future taxpayers (at of course a higher rate since deficit spending can only continue for a finite time).

[PLAYER57832]

Nice try at sideswiping points I actually made....
I said that the bill was a compromise passed by congress and if its rejected, the impact will be disasterous on us all. I also said that providing healthcare for the people falls under the "common welfare" clause of the constitution.

"Common welfare" does not mean "specific welfare", and even if it did, "common welfare" is in the Preamble to the Constitution, not the actual policy portion. The Preamble is a statement of intent of what the policy will provide, not the actual force of law.

LOL... your twisting and turning to attempt to claim your arguments actually make sense is amazing. The real bottom line is that yes, the government's job IS to protect people and yes, people DO steer that. Unfortunately, those steering don't always know what is best -- which is part of why Republics tend to work better than real Democracies. (time lags in power changes mean changes are at least more gradual)

And even if your argument is correct, how does Obamacare provide health care for all? It mandates that people buy a particular type of product, but it doesn't actually provide them with that care. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can mandate that a person purchase a product?

WEll, let's see. People have to be vaccinated. You can call that forcing people to purchase a product (and yes, the healthcare act does allow for similar types of exceptions, plus a few of a more practical nature). People have to purchase a license/education to perform many jobs. People have to pay all sorts of taxes, many of which very much do go to support quite private businesses. In fact, if some big muckity muck wants to build a shopping mall where your house or farm lie, they can get it condemned. I can come up with more examples, but why waste my time when I know you are just going to ignore any real point I make? You have done that pretty much throughout this thread, after all.

The clauses of the government were intentionally broad. If the need is truly dire, they can do almost anything -- including forcing you to take up a gun and go shoot enemies in a war you don't support.

[PLAYER57832]

If the free market were allowed to work, someone will find a way to provide a product to and make money from people who have pre-existing conditions that other providers won't cover.

No they won't - there's no profit margin there that's remotely affordable.

My good sir, I must disagree. Profit is not simply a monetary issue. Profit is also realized by the subjective gains, or increases in "good and fuzzy feelings," of those who establish organizations which would mitigate the costs of people who have pre-existing conditions.

These means of support can be provided by family, friends, or the community----if only these means were allowed to operate. Instead, with state intervention, these means are crowded out, or closed, because such means are easily substituted by a well-intended program from the government which would be financed by current taxpayers and future taxpayers (at of course a higher rate since deficit spending can only continue for a finite time).

You are half right. See, it is precisely because the above systems relying upon wholly private and independent largess and movement that we have so many government institutions and rules now.

But, the powerful of the past, who had gained som much from that system, were not too happy about it. Thus the return to the "all money flows to the top" and "of course those at the bottom are just stupid people who don't really deserve anything but that which the higher ups decide to pass down".

AND, all of the above is without the realities that the entire basis of our economies -- cheap fuel/power sources, clean air/water and a functioning environment (which, among other issues leads to clean air and water -- but also much more) are all going away to feed those who benefit the most from our current system at the cost of the rest of us.

[Night Strike]

The clauses of the government were intentionally broad. If the need is truly dire, they can do almost anything -- including forcing you to take up a gun and go shoot enemies in a war you don't support.

That "almost anything" most assuredly does not apply to forcing you to buy a product simply because you are alive. If it does, then I have determined that every person must buy a gun to protect themselves, every person must buy a burial plot/casket (or cremation plan) because they will die someday, and whenever a favored sector of the economy is in trouble, every person must buy a product from that sector. It will be so passed because there will be no limits on what the government can make you do. Futhermore, we will ban all things that negatively affect your health care because those things increase all of our costs. You don't have the choice what to eat or do because the government must reign in the costs of your health care.



By the way, so I heard on the radio last night about why we have employer-based health insurance. Not surprisingly, it was because of the government meddling in the free market. During WW2, FDR did not like that businesses were offering higher wages to attract employees away from other companies. Because that would mess up the industrial stability needed to support the war effort, he forced wage freezes and didn't allow companies to attract workers with higher wages. To counter that law, businesses started offering job benefits, like health insurance, to make their jobs more attractive and to still find a way to get the best people. So yes, it was governmental actions that led to the flawed employer-based system that we have today. Governmental actions always interfere with the free market. Sometimes it can adjust to the interference, but that doesn't mean the new way will be better than the old way.

[Night Strike]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.

Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

[Woodruff]

Here's my take on pre-existing conditions:
No insurance companies (non-profit and for-profit) should not be required to provide equal prices for those with pre-existing conditions. The risk is greater; therefore, the expected outlays of covering such problems will be greater. This is a fair system because it doesn't force healthier people to pay the marginal burden of those inclined to higher risks.

That's good in theory, but what is to keep an insurance company from taking the higher fees for those pre-existing conditions, then when the cost layout in paying for the treatment for those conditions gets too high, simply declaring bankruptcy? Is there a law against that (I honestly don't know).

The ultimate paradox is this: by supporting further state intervention, these advocates in turn will incur the additional costs and consequences of state intervention. There is no easy answer for those supporting further state intervention, yet are willing to ignore the consequences. You can't have state-mandated regulations and a "socially just" society without the burdens of state and its unintended consequences and additional costs.

Who here is ignoring these unintended consequences that you're referring to?

[Woodruff]

If the free market were allowed to work, someone will find a way to provide a product to and make money from people who have pre-existing conditions that other providers won't cover.

No they won't - there's no profit margin there that's remotely affordable.

My good sir, I must disagree. Profit is not simply a monetary issue. Profit is also realized by the subjective gains, or increases in "good and fuzzy feelings," of those who establish organizations which would mitigate the costs of people who have pre-existing conditions.

These means of support can be provided by family, friends, or the community----if only these means were allowed to operate.

That's really not health insurance, you realize.

[Woodruff]

The clauses of the government were intentionally broad. If the need is truly dire, they can do almost anything -- including forcing you to take up a gun and go shoot enemies in a war you don't support.

That "almost anything" most assuredly does not apply to forcing you to buy a product simply because you are alive.

You mean like vaccinations?

[Night Strike]

The clauses of the government were intentionally broad. If the need is truly dire, they can do almost anything -- including forcing you to take up a gun and go shoot enemies in a war you don't support.

That "almost anything" most assuredly does not apply to forcing you to buy a product simply because you are alive.

You mean like vaccinations?

You can opt-out of vaccinations. You can NOT opt-out of Obamacare.

[Woodruff]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.
Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

[Woodruff]

The clauses of the government were intentionally broad. If the need is truly dire, they can do almost anything -- including forcing you to take up a gun and go shoot enemies in a war you don't support.

That "almost anything" most assuredly does not apply to forcing you to buy a product simply because you are alive.

You mean like vaccinations?

You can opt-out of vaccinations. You can NOT opt-out of Obamacare.

So you didn't read my post regarding the mandate to understand why it exists, then?

[Night Strike]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.
Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

Only because Roberts is a coward who betrayed his principles. It's ALWAYS Republican-nominated Justices who turn liberal; the liberal ones NEVER change to Conservative.

[Woodruff]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.
Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

Only because Roberts is a coward who betrayed his principles. It's ALWAYS Republican-nominated Justices who turn liberal; the liberal ones NEVER change to Conservative.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. Do you ever do any self-reflection, Night Strike?

[Night Strike]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.
Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

Only because Roberts is a coward who betrayed his principles. It's ALWAYS Republican-nominated Justices who turn liberal; the liberal ones NEVER change to Conservative.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. Do you ever do any self-reflection, Night Strike?

4 Justices voted to strike down the entire law. They understood what Obamacare meant to our freedoms. They also recognized that OBAMA LIED to the American people. He repeatedly stated that Obamacare was NOT a tax, but taxation is the ONLY reason this law was upheld. Nowhere in the law does it ever state that the mandate was a tax, so to claim that it was is a constitutional travesty. Roberts (and the 4 liberals) has betrayed the American people.

[Woodruff]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.
Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

Only because Roberts is a coward who betrayed his principles. It's ALWAYS Republican-nominated Justices who turn liberal; the liberal ones NEVER change to Conservative.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. Do you ever do any self-reflection, Night Strike?

4 Justices voted to strike down the entire law. They understood what Obamacare meant to our freedoms. They also recognized that OBAMA LIED to the American people. He repeatedly stated that Obamacare was NOT a tax, but taxation is the ONLY reason this law was upheld. Nowhere in the law does it ever state that the mandate was a tax, so to claim that it was is a constitutional travesty. Roberts (and the 4 liberals) has betrayed the American people.

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

[Neoteny]

Today is a victory for America.

[Night Strike]

Wow, the Chief Justice has made it a 5-4 decision. We had it won, but he turned against the Constitution. Thankfully he did not expand the power under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, but he could have struck down everything.
Conservatives MUST awaken NOW.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court.

Only because Roberts is a coward who betrayed his principles. It's ALWAYS Republican-nominated Justices who turn liberal; the liberal ones NEVER change to Conservative.

Once again, Night Strike understands the Constitution better than the Supreme Court. Do you ever do any self-reflection, Night Strike?

4 Justices voted to strike down the entire law. They understood what Obamacare meant to our freedoms. They also recognized that OBAMA LIED to the American people. He repeatedly stated that Obamacare was NOT a tax, but taxation is the ONLY reason this law was upheld. Nowhere in the law does it ever state that the mandate was a tax, so to claim that it was is a constitutional travesty. Roberts (and the 4 liberals) has betrayed the American people.

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Today is a victory for America.

Not today, but November 6th will be. Because on that day, conservatives will put the TRUE mandate on America in the form of a mandate on the government to repeal Obamacare and progressivism.

[Woodruff]

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Ah, the Supreme Court refused to look at the rest of the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibility that they know the Constitution better than you do, of course?

[kentington]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

[kentington]

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Ah, the Supreme Court refused to look at the rest of the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibility that they know the Constitution better than you do, of course?

How often does the Supreme Court vote unanimously?

[Night Strike]

Allow me to quote you, Night Strike, as an opening remark to my response:

Are you sure you actually know what the Constitution says? In fact, I think it clearly states in Article I that the Congress is responsible for setting rules of naturalization, not the executive branch. In fact, Article II actually states that the president is to faithfully execute the laws of the nation, which means he has to actually carry out the laws the Congress has passed and he or another president has signed.

Now, I'm curious...do you know what Article III states?

It establishes the Supreme Court. However, 5 Justices refused to look at the rest of the Constitution and chose to uphold a clearly unconstitutional mandate as a TAX. When every single politicians said it was not a tax and the law itself never said the mandate was a tax.

Ah, the Supreme Court refused to look at the rest of the Constitution. I'm sure that's it, Night Strike. There's not a possibility that they know the Constitution better than you do, of course?

Four justices voted to strike down the ENTIRE law. They understood that the government could not force you to take an action against your will simply because you exist. Roberts is a coward.