6th Circuit Upholds Obamacare

[TexanAtPlay]

This ruling means the government is essentially all powerful with no check on it's powers. Case law overrules the words of the Constitution. Get ready for ten times the mandates on behavior, because this case will be cited in the future when the government orders you to buy a certain brand of product to control the market place or to help out a favored business concern. Or prohibits you from buying a product because your BMI is above 28.

This is bad bad bad, and ensures this will end in violent revolution, because someone somewhere will be pushed too far. This is the same crap the English government pulled between 1765 and 1775.

[DragonTongue]

Originally Posted by Doove

It absolutely is like being required to purchase car insurance. As i pointed out in another thread, car insurance is not required to protect you from financial loss, it's required to protect someone else from financial loss. Which is exactly the reason you should be required to have health insurance, since hospitals are required (thank you, Ronnie Reagan) to treat you if you have an emergency.

Doove, does that mean I can turn in my mother in law? She's NEVER had car insurance... she's never DRIVEN! STATES set the insurance requirement, usually based on vehicle registration. Also, not all states require every driver to carry insurance. I believe it's Massachusetts that allows drivers with clean records to drive uninsured.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Ah, Doovie my little libeskind. Where HAVE you been? I’ve missed you. Kisses aside, no, car ownership is optional breathing isn’t.

So what's your point, Olivia? Let me state this slowly, so you'll understand. If you are in a position to potentially leave someone else at a loss you need to be covered by insurance. Whether you are in that position by choice or not shouldn't matter. Your position ignores the fact that hospitals being required to treat people in an emergency is not an option for the hospitals. Let me say that again. Hospitals being required to treat people in an emergency is not an option for the hospitals.

The way the law is now, if you make more than $14,400.01 and you don’t buy health insurance then you will be fined (I think) $2,500. That’s absolute bullshit. Penalizing someone for being too poor to provide a basic necessity of life.

I question some of your claims, but don't have the time right now to look into them.

2. Eliminate pre-existing conditions.

And i'd like to know exactly how you do this in a way that's fair, without having a mandate.

We could get started on these right away.

Your ideas don't sound all bad to me. But let's be real, what you or i might want and what could be accomplished in this political atmosphere are 2 very divergent things. And frankly, what Obama might have wanted and what he was able to get, same thing. These are "working to make Obama a 1 term president, country be damned" Republicans we're talking about here. So you want to criticize what ultimately came out of the sausage factory, fine.

To answer your question, I haven’t voted for a winner since Ronald Regan (His second term). I’m not a Republican Doovie no matter how hard you try to make me one.

Actually, that doesn't answer my question. Sorry i wasn't more clear in what my question was. The question is, who was your first choice, going back through and including the primary process. Frankly, you sound more and more every day like a bitter, whining, Hillary supporter who's upset because Obama took what they think was rightfully hers.

Originally Posted by DragonTongue

Doove, does that mean I can turn in my mother in law? She's NEVER had car insurance... she's never DRIVEN!

And what's your point? Did i, or anyone, ever state that people should be required to have car insurance if they never drive?

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay

This ruling means the government is essentially all powerful with no check on it's powers. Case law overrules the words of the Constitution. Get ready for ten times the mandates on behavior, because this case will be cited in the future when the government orders you to buy a certain brand of product to control the market place or to help out a favored business concern. Or prohibits you from buying a product because your BMI is above 28.

This is bad bad bad, and ensures this will end in violent revolution, because someone somewhere will be pushed too far. This is the same crap the English government pulled between 1765 and 1775.

This is what really worries me..

[DragonTongue]

Originally Posted by Doove

And what's your point? Did i, or anyone, ever state that people should be required to have car insurance if they never drive?

By claiming that the ObamaCare requirement was the same as being required to purchase auto insurance, you implied that you might support mandatory auto coverage as well. If that's not the case, then I apologize for the presumption.

My point was that there are significant differences, so the use of this comparison to justify the government mandate falls flat. Yet it seems to be the most popular response to critics of the mandate.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DragonTongue

By claiming that the ObamaCare requirement was the same as being required to purchase auto insurance, you implied that you might support mandatory auto coverage as well. If that's not the case, then I apologize for the presumption.

My point was that there are significant differences, so the use of this comparison to justify the government mandate falls flat. Yet it seems to be the most popular response to critics of the mandate.

You just do not get it.

The hospitals' are required to fix a person if they have insurance or not.

Health care should be mandated way before auto insurance.

Do you think car repair shops should be required to fix cars regardless of people ability to pay or not?

Who the fuc would have car insurance if that were the case?

Now if you want to change the law to read that doctors do not have to care for anyone unless they can be paid upfront , fine. Lay in the ER until they sort out your insurance, if you have enough and whether they want to work on you. If the doctors decide that your insurance is not enough they can send your dying ass to another doctor who just may or may not decide to work on you....depending how much money you could come up with of course.

Yea you have a point, they are not the same. In fact health insurance should be required way before car insurance. Ain't no car ever died in the ER because a repair man refused to work on him because he wouldn't get paid.



So before Obamacare came around....we already had socialized medicine. You seem to be fine with it's present form, even though it was the worst possible form and was breaking the country! Are you a Commie? Do you hate this country?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

This is what really worries me..

Are you worried when they tell you you must have a Driver License?

It is no different than that.

If you do not like the government telling you to have insurance or a DL, the real choice is for the government to quit telling doctors to help those people that do not have health insurance. That would include kids and preggy women with no health insurance.

That is the viable alternative....is that what you want?

[jhende3]

These people are crazy gov do tell me i got to have health insurance that none of your business. My health is none of anyone in Washington concern! Except if I'm pregnant or if i want to end my life but thats it. Keep the gov from between me and my doctor i like not having to pay him right now.

Difference between health insurance and car insurance is that you might not every need car insurance but when you will need health insurance. Maybe these people plan on going out with a major heart attack and die on the scene.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Are you worried when they tell you you must have a Driver License?

It is no different than that.


That is the viable alternative....is that what you want?

Would you be so liberal if the government required all citizens to carry a “National ID” which everyone would show before voting? The ACLU and many Dimocrats object to such a policy as being “too intrusive” and unconstitutional.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by TexanAtPlay

This ruling means the government is essentially all powerful with no check on it's powers. Case law overrules the words of the Constitution. Get ready for ten times the mandates on behavior, because this case will be cited in the future when the government orders you to buy a certain brand of product to control the market place or to help out a favored business concern. Or prohibits you from buying a product because your BMI is above 28.

This is bad bad bad, and ensures this will end in violent revolution, because someone somewhere will be pushed too far. This is the same crap the English government pulled between 1765 and 1775.

I read somewhere that this decision is akin to the Roosevelt administration going after some farmer because he grew more than the mandated amount of corn in his own fields. They evoked the Constitution and interstate commerce. His defense was it was a, his land, and b, he had no intention of selling the corn. He was going to use it on his farm to feed his livestock. Spooky and very Orwellian. These decisions do sound the same.

Originally Posted by Doove

So what's your point, Olivia? Let me state this slowly, so you'll understand. If you are in a position to potentially leave someone else at a loss you need to be covered by insurance. Whether you are in that position by choice or not shouldn't matter. Your position ignores the fact that hospitals being required to treat people in an emergency is not an option for the hospitals. Let me say that again. Hospitals being required to treat people in an emergency is not an option for the hospitals.

There are so many other ways to show your affection for me Doovie. Sarcasm before what you perceive as a cyber-bitch slap isn’t necessarily the only way. So let me tell you really slowly, driving is an option. If I’m not driving because I live in NYC or I don’t have a car or whatever, I am in no position to hurt someone or their property. Thus the optional part of the equation. In fact at that point, I don’t know that I could even get insured for driving if I didn’t own a car. Breathing, on the other hand, is not an option. Whether I own a car or not I still must breath if I care to stay alive for more than four minutes.

Originally Posted by Doove

I question some of your claims, but don't have the time right now to look into them.

It’s not my claim. It’s a fact. $14,400 is the upper limit unless there was a last minute change that I don’t know about. Although, I don’t entirely blame the Democrats for that little faux paux. It really is the American way to hate and penalize the poor and downtrodden. The roots for this go back to Christianity and our Puritan roots. If you work hard – and you should BTW, if you are not a sine, if you tive (sp), if you love Jesus enough, you will be rewarded with wealth and material goods while you are here on Earth. But, the Big Guy, Pelosi and the gang want to help the poor so they really should. I assume you agree.

You see, I don’t have a bitch with nationalized healthcare as I’ve stated on many occasions. I have a problem with them ignoring the poor, writing a bill that caters to the insanely wealthy and powerful insurance and medical field’s lobbies and creating a whole new agency to enforce their burdensome mandates and dumb down healthcare. I believe the first line of defense should be government doled out for those that don’t, can’t or won’t opt out of assembly line medicine. I believe the medical community to a licensed person needs to give back.

I believe insurance companies should stay out of socialized medicine. They don’t want involved in the poor and the indigent’s healthcare anyway. They are unhealthy! They really just want the healthy and the cream of the crop for their corporate bottom lines. Really, whom would you rather insure? A poor, working class single mother that’s over worked, poorly nourished, over stressed and never gets enough sleep and her two children. Or someone like me that’s in shape, eats well, isn’t stressed from twenty different angles, statistically beyond childbearing years and has no family history of cancer or heart disease and isn’t diabetic? Really? Which would you rather insure? Why do you think the law was written the way it was? It’s not about the poor. It never was. If it was President High-Horse and his posse would have stood on their principles and not caved to the insurance and medical industry. Get real.

I hate to go back to the Really? But really? You wanna get pissed about a law passed while Regan was in office that required anyone to be treated that goes to an emergency room. Why does that piss you off Doovie? Really? Why? If they are using it as a doctor’s office, they are forced to wait forever and only get a few minutes of the staff’s time, and they are billed for it. If they truly need medical attention, why would you let that enrage you? You can only have it one way. Either you want the masses to have access to health care or you don’t. You really need to pick a side.

[quote=Doove;1433359]And i'd like to know exactly how you do this in a way that's fair, without having a mandate.[/quoqte]


Simple. You make it illegal to refuse coverage to anyone that has a pre-existing medical condition. You don’t need to create burdensome, overreaching legislation that doesn’t meet the needs and never will to pass one simple little law that eliminates a grave injustice.

Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, that doesn't answer my question. Sorry i wasn't more clear in what my question was. The question is, who was your first choice, going back through and including the primary process. Frankly, you sound more and more every day like a bitter, whining, Hillary supporter who's upset because Obama took what they think was rightfully hers

I sound bitter? Damn boy you do realize that is pretty much the blackest of black pots calling me kinda tan don’t you? Do you even like women? I mean I know you have a hard on for me, but in general, do you hate women as much as you seem ? Yes, I voted for Hillary in the primary. She was my first choice; she’s infinitely more qualified on many levels. At least she has had a job – a real job that is, she finished multiple terms as a senator and waited until she wasn’t wet behind the ears to write her one vs three, I believe, books in the first two years of his senator’s term. Really, three books about his life and trials in his life before he was 45? Ok.

Originally Posted by Doove

And what's your point? Did i, or anyone, ever state that people should be required to have car insurance if they never drive?

Here we are back to your non-sequitur thinking. Congratulations. You win. We all loose. Because it really is the world at large against you.

Originally Posted by WTF

So before Obamacare came around....we already had socialized medicine. You seem to be fine with it's present form, even though it was the worst possible form and was breaking the country! Are you a Commie? Do you hate this country?

I couldn’t be less happy with the current heath care system. It’s kinda socialized medicine, but it kinda isn’t. It leaves the entire middle class that isn’t insured or that is dramatically underinsured to fend for themselves. It’s not right. What we have doesn’t work. What we have with Obamacare will be a gigantic bureaucracy that won’t be any better in my opinion. But, you think it’s great. We’ll see. I give it two years and it still won’t be an enforceable plan and it won’t be helping a single person. After four years, it will be taxing everyone that earns $14,400.01, helping the exact same people that are covered by Medicare, the working and middle classes still won’t be helped, those of us that can afford insurance will still have it AND it will be costing a WHOLE lot more. But, I’ll bet you think otherwise.

[googol^googol]

I see this decision not as expanding federal powers but merely acknowleding the extent of power the federal government already wields.

Whether this particular health care plan is a good idea or not is debatable.
(I think right idea but not well executed.)
Whether the existing level of federal powers is too much or not is debatable.
(I believe the executive branch in particular has grown far too strong.)

Whether this particular health care plan is beyond the existing level of federal powers, I don't believe is true and I don't believe there is much substantial ground from which to claim that it is. There will be those who use the argument of excessive government control because they want to limit government control (fair enough) or because they don't like this plan (also fair enough), but I don't believe the claim that it actually is a substantial increase in governmental powers is valid.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Would you be so liberal if the government required all citizens to carry a “National ID” which everyone would show before voting? The ACLU and many Dimocrats object to such a policy as being “too intrusive” and unconstitutional.

Well then just combine a national voter card with a national healthcare card

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well then just combine a national voter card with a national healthcare card

I agree, but it will be fun to watch and see how some politicians will squirm to justify the need for a National Healthcare Card while continuing to oppose a National ID Card. Very interesting possibilities indeed!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

There are so many other ways to show your affection for me Doovie. Sarcasm before what you perceive as a cyber-bitch slap isn’t necessarily the only way. So let me tell you really slowly, driving is an option.

Never said it wasn't.

If I’m not driving because I live in NYC or I don’t have a car or whatever, I am in no position to hurt someone or their property.

Never said you were.

Thus the optional part of the equation.

Never once did i disagree. That said, i'm done wasting my time addressing this one point with you. You've not acknowledged my point, you've not addressed my point, and you've not rebutted my point. All you do is keep repeating this "breathing is not optional" nonsense. Again, no shit, Sherlock.

I hate to go back to the Really? But really? You wanna get pissed about a law passed while Regan was in office that required anyone to be treated that goes to an emergency room. Why does that piss you off Doovie? Really? Why?

Um, Olivia, it doesn't piss me off. I keep mentioning it because i think it's entirely relevant, in a positive way, to this whole argument. The law (and by definition, Reagan) A)seems to acknowledge that healthcare is, in fact, a right, and B)puts the mandate within the same realm of requiring people to buy car insurance. You really do need to stop arguing with yourself and start addressing my points as they are actually stated.

Simple. You make it illegal to refuse coverage to anyone that has a pre-existing medical condition.

I said in a way that's fair. Allowing people to wait until they get sick, and then going out and purchasing insurance is not fair. I'm no fan of insurance companies, believe me, but frankly, i can't see how that would be fair to them. And i certainly don't see how that goes towards bringing down the costs of health insurance. Maybe we can also let people wait until they have an accident before buying car insurance. Oh, that's right, breathing isn't optional.

I sound bitter? Damn boy you do realize that is pretty much the blackest of black pots calling me kinda tan don’t you? Do you even like women? I mean I know you have a hard on for me, but in general, do you hate women as much as you seem?

This is just stupid.

Yes, I voted for Hillary in the primary. She was my first choice;

Ah, so your first choice was someone who campaigned on the idea of a mandate. But now that Obama signed one into law, you think it's the worst thing in the world. The puzzle is starting to come together.

she’s infinitely more qualified on many levels. At least she has had a job – a real job that is, she finished multiple terms as a senator

She finished one term. I'm from New York, remember? So i would know. So yeah, her 4 extra years as a Senator would make her more qualified on just so many levels :eye roll:

and waited until she wasn’t wet behind the ears to write her one vs three, I believe, books in the first two years of his senator’s term. Really, three books about his life and trials in his life before he was 45? Ok.

And this makes Hillary more qualified.......how?

Your Obama hatred is really starting to come into focus Olivia. It's not about Obama, it's all about Hillary.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by DragonTongue

Doove, does that mean I can turn in my mother in law? She's NEVER had car insurance... she's never DRIVEN! STATES set the insurance requirement, usually based on vehicle registration. Also, not all states require every driver to carry insurance. I believe it's Massachusetts that allows drivers with clean records to drive uninsured.

You mother-in-law isn't in the driving market. Therefore, she will not impose external costs on other when she has an accident. She (and any one whomis uninsured) is in the market for health care services. They, as a group, will with a 100% probability impose external costs on the healthncare an health care financing markets. Therefore, the uninsured effect interstate commerce whereas you mother-in-law doesn't.