Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;32500455]You do know the only reason you even think that is because we have a black president and he's a Democrat. Heck, if Hillery was President, you'd call me Sexist. If you want your accusations to stick, you need evidence.[/QUOTE] In either case, we'd call you a grade-A moron. We've got a lot of evidence of that, to boot. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32500458]Not the same thing, your health insurance never has to pay for someone else.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant. Fact of the matter is you have to buy it.

Somehow, America looks at it's top universities and says 'Yeah, best education ever', and skips over the 'poorest general education and healthcare' part. I don't even.

[QUOTE=Miskav;32502212] You're "Forced" to pay taxes as well, are you all up in arms about that? [/QUOTE] nope as a republican glaber only believes that people poorer than himself should pay taxes

[QUOTE=5killer;32501322]Who do you think pays for emergency medical treatment for the uninsured?[/QUOTE] Everyone. Not the same thing a a car accident, where you may have to directly pay. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32502279]Irrelevant. Fact of the matter is you have to buy it.[/QUOTE] Not at all irrelevant, they aren't comparable things. And yeah, that will be the fact, in 2014, if it's not struck down. What's your point, it's law so it makes sense?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32500962]Absolutely. America needs a single-payer system for two reasons: - Heathcare should be a human right - With a single-payer system everyone is automatically on public insurance so there is no "mandate"[/QUOTE] It really baffles me that the US is like the only first world developed country that doesn't have some sort of universal healthcare system. What baffles me more is that no-one there seems to mind being horribly overcharged and having to go into debt for medical procedures.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32503830]Not at all irrelevant, they aren't comparable things. And yeah, that will be the fact, in 2014, if it's not struck down. What's your point, it's law so it makes sense?[/quote] They are comparable. Auto insurance is mandated (and has been for a long time), health insurance is now mandated. Plain and simple. Hence the whole "You can't be forced to buy a good or service from the government" argument from opponents about this issue doesn't fly. At least with health insurance, too, you can opt out of buying from the private sector and can become a part of a public program.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32504230]They are comparable. Auto insurance is mandated (and has been for a long time), health insurance is now mandated. Plain and simple. Hence the whole "You can't be forced to buy a good or service from the government" argument from opponents about this issue doesn't fly. At least with health insurance, too, you can opt out of buying from the private sector and can become a part of a public program.[/QUOTE] Auto insurance has a good reason to be mandated, health insurance doesn't have the same. Not comparable. Also, have you even been paying attention to this bill? They removed the public option.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504371]Auto insurance has a good reason to be mandated, health insurance doesn't have the same. Not comparable.[/quote] Matter of perspective; generally, people would be inclined to disagree with you, arguing that matters of public health (which affect the entire country and thusly the entire populace) are more important. Again, fact is auto insurance is mandated, now health insurance is. If auto insurance can be, then health insurance can be as well. So, again, the "You can't be forced to buy a good or service from the government" argument from opponents is horse shit, and they're going to have to dredge up some other reason why it's unconstitutional (that at the very least SOUNDS like it makes more sense). [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504371]Also, have you even been paying attention to this bill? They removed the public option.[/QUOTE] No, they did not. Public health insurance programs are still readily available and in fact were one of the components of reform under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Funding was increased for public programs to record levels. [url]https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf[/url]

I would go so far as to argue that it is your duty as a human to provide aid to anyone injured in an accident, and that a proper healthcare system should be a human right. The whole principle behind medicine and healthcare is the bettering of society and the sick - not trying to extort the unfortunate. The whole idea of having to go out of your way to cover yourself against an accident just seems fundimentally wrong to me - especially considering the conditions that insurance companies may put on it - wasn't there a thread about how companies wouldn't cover an entire town or something?

[QUOTE=Glaber;32499730]So I guess you must really like being forced to buy stuff. Regardless of weather you want it or not.[/QUOTE] Glaber.. that's exactly what a tax is. And let's not forget the Mandate was because the Republicans attacked a form where it would have been paid for by taxation, so as to give handjobs to the insurance companies that fund their campaigns.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32504650]Matter of perspective; generally, people would be inclined to disagree with you, arguing that matters of public health (which affect the entire country and thusly the entire populace) are more important. Again, fact is auto insurance is mandated, now health insurance is. If auto insurance can be, then health insurance can be as well. So, again, the "You can't be forced to buy a good or service from the government" argument from opponents is horse shit, and they're going to have to dredge up some other reason why it's unconstitutional (that at the very least SOUNDS like it makes more sense).[/QUOTE] Look, the reason auto insurance is mandatory is this: you get in a car crash, you break a traffic law, you have to pay for the other person's vehicle repair. Driving is an optional thing and if you're going to do it you need to have the ability to cover yourself if you screw up. There is no comparable concept with health insurance. Being alive isn't optional, you'll never be in a situation where your insurance pays for someone due to your fault. The mandate was pushed by health insurance lobbyists to make money as a compromise for not getting to be dickholes anymore. Democrats [I]should be against this part, it's a compromise![/I]

[quote]Look, the reason auto insurance is mandatory is this: you get in a car crash, you break a traffic law, you have to pay for the other person's vehicle repair.[/quote] Why isn't optional, though? After all, you [I]chose[/I] to go without insurance that covers other people in an accident, you knew the risks, and when an accident occurs you're on the hook for the money. Do you need to get insurance to cover accidental discharge of a firearm when you buy one? To be clear: I know it's because allowing people to go without insurance is not practical, and I agree with the practice in general. I also see requiring healthcare as more practical than not. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504818]Being alive isn't optional, you'll never be in a situation where your insurance pays for someone due to your fault.[/QUOTE] I'm under the impression that virtually everyone that goes without healthcare does so because of a lack of money to afford it. This also means that when any significant event occurs that healthcare would usually cover, these same people will end up even more incapable of affording their life. The mandate is a bad way of getting healthcare to everyone. However, we do need to get healthcare to everyone.

But, if they can't afford health insurance at all, go to the hospital AND have to pay a fine, now they're even more incapable.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;32500020]That is actually the only problem I have with the bill is that it forces you to buy health insurance, like car insurance. I think that if a person wants to save a few bucks and run the risk of not having health insurance, let them. Aside from that though, I'm O.K. with the other parts of the bill, and that one problem I have with it isn't enough to make me oppose it.[/QUOTE] If everyone shares the risk by everyone having health insurance, the fee goes down. That's the whole point.

do you have a rebuttal or do you think that an ad hominem is totally okay if it's in the form of a rating mobrockers

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32505139]do you have a rebuttal or do you think that an ad hominem is totally okay if it's in the form of a rating mobrockers[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, did I offend you by using the rating system as it was intended to be used?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504818]Look, the reason auto insurance is mandatory is this: you get in a car crash, you break a traffic law, you have to pay for the other person's vehicle repair. Driving is an optional thing and if you're going to do it you need to have the ability to cover yourself if you screw up. There is no comparable concept with health insurance. Being alive isn't optional, you'll never be in a situation where your insurance pays for someone due to your fault. The mandate was pushed by health insurance lobbyists to make money as a compromise for not getting to be dickholes anymore. Democrats [I]should be against this part, it's a compromise![/I][/QUOTE] Auto insurance is actually up to the individual states. In New Hampshire, you don't need it.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32505192]I'm sorry, did I offend you by using the rating system as it was intended to be used?[/QUOTE] Sorry, i'm spoiled by the debate forum where people like you are powerless. Tell me why I'm dumb, that's all I ask.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32506910]Sorry, i'm spoiled by the debate forum where people like you are powerless. Tell me why I'm dumb, that's all I ask.[/QUOTE] To be honest I just clicked the rating because I didn't understand the point you were trying to make, you didn't quote anyone and you didn't say what you meant so that last part of your statement seemed like a pretty dumb, loose, statement. Didn't realize you were talking to the person above you. I understand now.

[QUOTE=Miskav;32502212]Glaber you are such a typical Republican it's like you're trying your best to hurt your own image. You're "Forced" to pay taxes as well, are you all up in arms about that? Oh wait, when the rich have to pay taxes you are.[/QUOTE] There is a reason for that. The constitution gives the government to power to collect taxes, but not the power to force it's citizens to purchase a good or service. The moment they have that power, Right wingers in office can force you to buy guns and the training required to use one safely under the guise of personal defense. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32504230]They are comparable. Auto insurance is mandated (and has been for a long time).[/QUOTE] OBJECTION! While true that it's mandated, it's done so only at the state level and not all states mandate it. [QUOTE=NotoriousSpy;32505541]In New Hampshire, you don't need it.[/QUOTE] Further more you have to be a driver of an automotive vehicle for that mandate to even affect you in the states that do mandate it. [QUOTE=Craigewan;32504798]Glaber.. that's exactly what a tax is.[/QUOTE] You are not being forced to buy a good or service when being taxed as Tax is not a good or service. Taxes are how the government gets funded. A form of fee that Section 8 of the US Constitution gives the US and State level governments the authority to collect that can be placed on a good and/or service regardless of weather you like it or not. If You honestly think that taxes are a good or service, well then you're worse off than me.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504818]Look, the reason auto insurance is mandatory is this: you get in a car crash, you break a traffic law, you have to pay for the other person's vehicle repair. Driving is an optional thing and if you're going to do it you need to have the ability to cover yourself if you screw up.[/quote] That's, again, irrelevant. The fact of the matter is this: it is mandatory. Like health insurance is now. Hence, for the final time, the two are comparable on the most basic (yet important) of reasons: both are now mandatory. More importantly, this is the reason why the opponents of the reform law like Glaber can't seriously use the mandate argument against the health care reform law. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504818]There is no comparable concept with health insurance.[/quote] Except for, again, the two being mandatory forms of insurance. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504818]Being alive isn't optional, you'll never be in a situation where your insurance pays for someone due to your fault.[/quote] Unless your insurance also lists someone else to be covered, such as your spouse or child, of course. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32504818]The mandate was pushed by health insurance lobbyists to make money as a compromise for not getting to be dickholes anymore. Democrats [I]should be against this part, it's a compromise![/I][/QUOTE] Democrats were against it. Which is exactly why the public program funding boost was included: because of their efforts to fight against the douchebaggery of the Republicans. That was a result of the compromise that went on. They also managed to force private insurers to cover more pre-existing conditions and removed their ability to deny coverage on these grounds, too. While the end result of the bill was far from perfect, it's still functional and in many areas does a lot of good. It's also expanded coverage to include roughly 45 million previously uninsured Americans. [QUOTE=Glaber;32508097]OBJECTION! While true that it's mandated, it's done so only at the state level and not all states mandate it.[/quote] Overruled. State government is, regardless of how you try and spin it, still a form of government. A very critical form in this country. That said and done, 49 of the 50 states have it as mandate, as well. The exception, as was already pointed out, is New Hampshire, on the grounds of their own so-called "personal responsibility and accountability" concept- which, while it doesn't make it mandatory to have insurance, makes the extremely persuasive point that, for your own sake, it's within your best interests to buy it and always make sure you've got it.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32508597]That's, again, irrelevant. The fact of the matter is this: it is mandatory. Like health insurance is now. Hence, for the final time, the two are comparable on the most basic (yet important) of reasons: both are now mandatory. More importantly, this is the reason why the opponents of the reform law like Glaber can't seriously use the mandate argument against the health care reform law.[/QUOTE] This is stupid. Someone says it shouldn't be mandatory. You say it should because it's like car insurance. They ask how, you say because it's mandatory. So it should be mandatory, because it's mandatory? Also I'd like to point out it isn't even in effect for three more years. So it's not mandatory yet. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32508597]Overruled. State government is, regardless of how you try and spin it, still a form of government. A very critical form in this country. That said and done, 49 of the 50 states have it as mandate, as well. The exception, as was already pointed out, is New Hampshire, on the grounds of their own so-called "personal responsibility and accountability" concept- which, while it doesn't make it mandatory to have insurance, makes the extremely persuasive point that, for your own sake, it's within your best interests to buy it and always make sure you've got it.[/QUOTE] His point is that, if the two are [I]sooo[/I] comparable (they're still not), why not let health insurance be decided by states too? [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;32505021]Why isn't optional, though? After all, you [I]chose[/I] to go without insurance that covers other people in an accident, you knew the risks, and when an accident occurs you're on the hook for the money.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is, if you don't have any money at all, and can't pay for it, what happens to that guy now? He's pretty much fucked. [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32508597]Unless your insurance also lists someone else to be covered, such as your spouse or child, of course.[/QUOTE] I agree that you should ensure your child has some form of insurance but that's a whole other issue.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32508597]State government is, regardless of how you try and spin it, still a form of government.[/QUOTE] Yes, this is true. But you still fail to factor in that this is at the state level. not the Federal level like the Health insurance Mandate is. now because the Auto insurance is State level, it's up to the states to have it or not. as already pointed out, New Hampshire is the only exception to the auto insurance mandate. However, a federal Level mandate makes it so that NO State can be an exception.

waiting for it to be upheald then it goes through no matter what the states do

[QUOTE=Glaber;32509207]Yes, this is true. But you still fail to factor in that this is at the state level. not the Federal level like the Health insurance Mandate is. now because the Auto insurance is State level, it's up to the states to have it or not. as already pointed out, New Hampshire is the only exception to the auto insurance mandate. However, a federal Level mandate makes it so that NO State can be an exception.[/QUOTE] So you're saying it's alright when [I]state[/I] government forces you to purchase something, but not when the federal government does? You are aware that whether it's state or federal, it's still government, right?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;32508759]This is stupid. Someone says it shouldn't be mandatory. You say it should because it's [b]a critical public issue that affects the entire nation and every single citizen[/b]. They ask how, you say [b]through the health care reform law[/b].[/quote] Fixed. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32508759]So it should be mandatory, because it's mandatory?[/quote] See above. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32508759]Also I'd like to point out it isn't even in effect for three more years. So it's not mandatory yet.[/quote] Actually, it's been mandatory since 2010, following the signing of the bill into law. What isn't in effect that you're referring to is the the fining/taxing part for not having health insurance of some sort. But that's already pretty much be impossible since uninsured citizens as of, again, 2010 have been able to join any number of the public health coverage programs in existence (not to mention the new ones that were created) at their whim. [url]http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-15278.htm[/url] [QUOTE=Venezuelan;32508759]His point is that, if the two are [I]sooo[/I] comparable ([b]they are[/b]), why not let health insurance be decided by states too?[/quote] Because health insurance is a national issue that not only directly affects the well-being of literally every single citizen but also the country itself (its financial situation, general medical care and treatment quality, etc.). Why would you let something that important be decided on a state-by-state basis? That makes [i]zero[/i] sense.

[QUOTE=Glaber;32508097]The constitution gives the government to power to collect taxes, but not the power to force it's citizens to purchase a good or service.[/QUOTE] Which is effectively semantics, as they're allowed to do pretty much any stupid thing to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare", and you're already aware how that works for, say, tanks, so a distinction between "you have to buy X" versus "we'll tax you more to pay for giving X to you" when X is a thing congress says is in the interest of the welfare of the populace is essentially meaningless.

I hope it is gone as soon as possible. Regulation hurts business.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32512045']I hope it is gone as soon as possible. Regulation hurts business.[/QUOTE] When can I expect you to stop posting? [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] No seriously, do you ever actually come into a thread and say something beyond your passive aggressive "I hate Obama" nonsense, you shmuck?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32512656]When can I expect you to stop posting? [editline]27th September 2011[/editline] No seriously, do you ever actually come into a thread and say something beyond your passive aggressive "I hate Obama" nonsense, you shmuck?[/QUOTE] Yes, I do. But the content of my posts, and the quality of insults you can spew at me is not what we should be discussing. Personaly I am tired of you "Anyone Who doesn't agree with me is an evil racist bigoted idiot" nonsense. Can you please explain to me regulations help the economy? Or why should we let politicians with no business experience decide what is best for business through regulations?