Mandate Health Insurance?

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Insurance isnt interstate commerce is it?

If it is, and I work in LA for a company HQ'd in NYC, and have an insurance plan through said company, are they breaking a law or the constitution?

The interstate clause grants the right to the federal government to regulate insterstate commerce on behalf of all the people for the good of all the people. Since this is limited only to the employees of a single company, it would not apply, imo.

[CJ7]

HC payments from individually insured to corporate insurers flow over state lines every day

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

HC payments from individually insured to corporate insurers flow over state lines every day

Sure they do, but the interstate commerce clause ONLY applies to regulating commerce that effects ALL the people, meaning all the people in every state. In your example it would be hard pressed to convince the SCOTUS that every single citizen in America would somehow be effected by this company in NYC providing insurance to it's employees in LA. "Interstate" does not mean in this context, single state to single state commerce.

[CJ7]

IMO, the tax application has stronger legs. In 2015 when the first penalties are charged to individual/s SS accounts for not having insurance, could be the key to the door.

[Sexyeccentric1]

I have a strong feeling the supreme court is not going to strike down the obama care...looks like it may be headed that way. Cant wait for tomorrows news reports on this. Such a nail biter...

[canoodle]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Look at car insurance. If it was not mandatory, irresponsible drivers would wreck the lives of the responsible drivers.

It's not mandatory....I don't have a car...but I do have a body!

[essence]

Five simple points (plus of course agreeing with LD, he actually knows what he is talking about).

- Obama was completely right to say forcing all citizens to purchase insurance is not the whole story, you have to deal with those who cannot afford it. Who can possibly argue with that? Are you saying there should be universal health care, but only universal for those who can afford it? What kind of nonsense is that?

- I don't know if universal health care is a right or not, we can argue about words, but it is the consequence which is important. If not a right, it is surely common decency or humanity.

- From my experience, it is the same in the UK and US. If you arrive at a hospital door with severe or life threatening illness, they will treat you. They will, if necessary, turn a blind eye to the legal niceties of whether you are an alien or not, or whether you have insurance or not. They will write out a prescription for you and ignore the boxes which say insurance id (or whatever). Doctors, at least some of them, are human and compassionate. I have experience of this on both sides of the atlantic.

- on the other hand, an obese US woman who turns up at a UK hospital asking for free liposuction will get short thrift.

- football is Rugby Football.

[nwarounder]

Might be a good time for everyone to go brush up (learn) our history and remember or find out why our ancestors left the King and Queen in to establish a more perfect union. ijs

[essence]

So what is your point, apart from playing silly schoolboy games and trying to win spurious points.

Address the issues.

Grow up.

You may need to do the latter before you can do the former.

Of course, if you think the US can go it alone and never learn anything from any other nation, that is your choice, why not go the full step and stop any immigration or business exchange or diplomacy or dialogue or international trade, and become a little americander...

... no, wait, you probably already want to do that.


ps if you say I have no right to comment on US health care because it does not affect me, you could not be more wrong.

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Might be a good time for everyone to go brush up (learn) our history and remember or find out why our ancestors left the King and Queen in to establish a more perfect union. ijs

Hmmmm...taxation without representation was the primary reason. Also to get away from the catholic rules whereby Kings declared themselves the hand of God and persecuted anyone who was not Catholic. Like say King Henry the VIII?

[essence]

ps. on the thread about Trayvon Martin, you said:

If that's a real pic and accurately portrays his lifestyle, it's settled for me. Good riddance

Apart from the fact that there is debate about whether it was his real pic or not, and whether a pic should be used as evidence for a lifestyle or bahaviour, you condemn yourself by the 'good riddance', and shows where you are coming from in the health debate.

When somebody makes an aresehole comment, I sometimes check their other posts to see if it was isolated, and normally it can be quickly seen that it was not isolated, but they are indeed arseholes through and through.

[essence]

ps. as a minor side note, in 2000 it was reported that there were 40,000 British citizens living in Greater Houston.

Send them all home, I say!

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by essence

ps. on the thread about Trayvon Martin, you said:

If that's a real pic and accurately portrays his lifestyle, it's settled for me. Good riddance

Apart from the fact that there is debate about whether it was his real pic or not, and whether a pic should be used as evidence for a lifestyle or bahaviour, you condemn yourself by the 'good riddance', and shows where you are coming from in the health debate.

When somebody makes an aresehole comment, I sometimes check their other posts to see if it was isolated, and normally it can be quickly seen that it was not isolated, but they are indeed arseholes through and through.

True, have a zero tolerance for gangstas and parents that allow their children to look and act like gangstas, and I have yet to find any use for them in society. If you like em, by all means run with them and teach your children the gangsta way.

All the other points I have addressed in the thread already, but i'll reiterate one point. To me, Obamacare is not even the issue, it's about whether we want the government to rule the people, or do we want the people to rule the government? If Obamacare is constitutional under the commerce clause which is what SCOTUS is debating, then congress can pass any law requiring us to purchase any product they say is good for us. And that is the precedent that will tear down a Democracy and what we fought against in the first place. Then, all the states will have to decide if they want to repeal Obamacare on the state level and is going to be a huge mess.

If I butthurt you a little, my apologies, didn't realize there were sensitive people on ECCIE.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

Hmmmm...taxation without representation was the primary reason. Also to get away from the catholic rules whereby Kings declared themselves the hand of God and persecuted anyone who was not Catholic. Like say King Henry the VIII?

Exactly! Government telling the people what to do, instead of the other way around.

[satexasguy]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn


Look at car insurance. If it was not mandatory, irresponsible drivers would wreck the lives of the responsible drivers.

Hey Fast Gun - I live in San Antonio, TX and there are lots of irresponsible drivers who do drive without mandatory insurance and they DO wreck the lives of responsible drivers.

Here's a question for the liberals - why is it OK to force every american to either obtain health insurance (via their employer or purchase it by themselves) or pay a penalty (via the IRS at around $1,800 per year)? Yet you liberals cry foul when republicans want every voter to provide a valid ID to vote? Your argument is that the poor cannot afford to purchase a valid ID, but you have no problem forcing the average american to spend money on something they should be able to chose NOT to buy?