• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

It's tough finding origional sources because it was a long time ago and most people refrence it but here's the court case where a Heritage expert was quoted
Court cites Heritage Foundation’s 1989 support for healthcare mandate in decision : USACTION NEWS
GOP Leaders Backed a Healthcare Mandate

Thanks for the link. I tried to read through it to gather context and well, I'm not going to make it. LOL

Your link notes something was argued in 1989. Hillarycare was fought against after that and no attempts were made under Bush to force people to buy insurance so at best I'd say that someone with the Heritage Foundation made some sort of arguement in the late 80's.................

Also keep in mind....the privatization of Social Security that Bush was putting out had a mandate to buy into retirement as well.

S.S. is a tax that already requires that.
 
So long as there is cancer, there will be demand for cancer treatment.
That people pay for it themselves means there will always be competition in the market.
Competition always reduces prices and improves quality.
:shrug:

Sorry but that statement is absurd when you talking healthcare...only the richest in the country could even possibly consider having the money to pay for long term cancer care, treatment and medications.
 
There is only one absolute in the healthcare debate...the haves in this country are never going to get out of paying for the have nots that dont have health care...one way or another your going to pay. Whether its universal health care or a form of it or whether its exactly the way it is now...taxpayers subsidize hospitals and doctors that in the emergency room where everyone goes that do not have healthcare...
In florida in my county every homeowner has a tax levy to pay for indigent care to people without health insurance and cant pay at the local hospital...
So instead of all this back and forth....sooner or later someone has got to get both sides together and figure something out....whats stopping it and always has is the rich do not want to pay a dime for anyone else...problem is they are and always have been anyway.
 
Sorry but that statement is absurd when you talking healthcare...only the richest in the country could even possibly consider having the money to pay for long term cancer care, treatment and medications.

Which is a two pronged problem. My mom recently beat cancer. We were talking today and she told me she had 3 pills when she started chemo that cost $500. She says her pills now would be $400 a month. She has insurance so she can afford the $25 co-pay but there is no way anyone can continue to pay $500 for 3 pills. That must be addresssed but it's not going to be.
 
Demand requires someone willing to purchase or able to at a certain price. I don't think you understand the demand curve. Just because demand is there at a lower price does not mean the price drops.
It does if the suppliers want to move their goods/services. Otherwise they're stuck with something they cannot sell.
:shrug:

Nothing you have posted here counters anything I said.
 
I feel you are down playing the importance of an affirmation by the SCOTUS.

maybe, but i doubt it. people's minds aren't just made up about this - they are solidly made up. the numbers disapproving of Obamacare have stayed high since it's passage.

Were it struck down, it would be a blow to the president and the GOP would declare victory and capitalize on that.

that is true, but from the opposite direction - it would harm the President because it risks demoralizing his base. it also harms the GOP because, while it somewhat solidifies an image of inevitability, it also takes out not a little of our base's passion.
 
Am I in bizarro world?
No... you're in a bind and you're trying to come up with excuses to not address what's been put to you.

Fact of the matter is you want to remove a choice that harms no one.
Fact of the matter is you want to penalize people that create no burden on others
Fact of the matter is you want to make people responsible for costs incurred by others
Fact of the matter is you have no way to justify these positions and are doing all you can to avoid addressing them.

Please, do contine to illustrate the absolute truth of these statements.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but that statement is absurd when you talking healthcare...only the richest in the country could even possibly consider having the money to pay for long term cancer care, treatment and medications.
Your statement ignores, rather than addresses, the point.
 
There is only one absolute in the healthcare debate...the haves in this country are never going to get out of paying for the have nots that dont have health care
Why/how am I responsible for the costs of goods/services provided to those who could not pay for them?
 
Thanks for the link. I tried to read through it to gather context and well, I'm not going to make it. LOL

Your link notes something was argued in 1989. Hillarycare was fought against after that and no attempts were made under Bush to force people to buy insurance so at best I'd say that someone with the Heritage Foundation made some sort of arguement in the late 80's.................
Well, I want to say that the employer mandate is what Heritage offered the individual mandate against. I'm not totally sure though so don't quote me on that.

S.S. is a tax that already requires that.
Yes, and if we had a universal payer system there would be no constitutionality questions because it would basically be medicare for all. The issue was Bush was saying people had to open a personal account with a private firm and invest in that private firm which is essentially the same thing as forcing people to buy private insurance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the private mandate at all. Republicans haven't offered any alternative at all besides tort reform or selling across state lines. The first would make a negligible blip in the cost of insurance and the second...we'd see a race to unregulated states as the base for insurance companies.
 
No... you're in a bind and you're trying to come up with excuses to not address what's been put to you.

I have...which is the whole "not harmed anyone" aspect...which is pretty much the linch pin of your argument and based on this fanciful what if scenario.

Using your logic...why have any laws whatesover! Everybody would choose to do the right thing!
 
Pretend YOU own a medical facility. Pretend there is no insurance, so the only way YOU get paid for services rendered, is if those customer (patients) can afford, and pay, for those services. Now, in this imaginary world, think about what is going to make the most money for yourself?

Rightwing arguments only work in the same place their "free market" exists....an imaginary world, where everything is pretend
 
I have...
At this point, its clear you're only interested in being as willfully dishonest as you can.
When you think you have the capacity to honestly and actually address the points put to you, please let me know.
 
Ok, whatever makes you feel better.
Actually, it saddens me greately that you cannot be honest enough - at least w/ yourself - to address these questions I put to you.
But, that's what happens when dogma overpowers reason.
 
Yes, and if we had a universal payer system there would be no constitutionality questions because it would basically be medicare for all. The issue was Bush was saying people had to open a personal account with a private firm and invest in that private firm which is essentially the same thing as forcing people to buy private insurance.

Yes, if the program had been one of where everyone simply has coverage and taxes were created to cover the costs, that would have been IMO constitutional. I do not recall Bush's arguement but I would have opposed that arguement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the private mandate at all. Republicans haven't offered any alternative at all besides tort reform or selling across state lines. The first would make a negligible blip in the cost of insurance and the second...we'd see a race to unregulated states as the base for insurance companies.

I dislike the arguement that something would only make a small difference. Everything added together makes a much larger difference and nothing should be excluded. I'm not against trying to come up with a system to cover everyone but everything must be reformed for it to work.
 
I dislike the arguement that something would only make a small difference. Everything added together makes a much larger difference and nothing should be excluded. I'm not against trying to come up with a system to cover everyone but everything must be reformed for it to work.

I agree..I don't discount it because it makes a small difference, but I'd like to see a working plan that would actually make a difference. If you just remove tort reform and walk away like mission accomplished than all you've done is limit the right of individuals to sue. you didn't really fix anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom