• 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!

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling

KevinKohler said:
Only liability is required by law for car insurance, and that's to protect other motorists. Home owner's insurance is not required by law...it IS required if you finance your house, however, and it is required not by the government, but by your financier.

Companies are not required by law to offer health insurance...they do so because their competition does, and as such, they must as well, in order to be attractive to the people they wish to employ. Companies are all not required by law to offer pension, 401K, or anything else, either, but again, they do so in order to be more appealing to potential talent.

Your sarcasm was both obvious, and poor.
Click to expand...
We buy car insurance for multiple reasons, to protect our investment in the car should it get damaged, to protect our assets in case we cause an accident, and because it is the responsible thing to do. It is required by law. We can only forego car insurance by not owning one.
Same for home insuarance, protect ourselves and it is the responsible thing to do. again, we don't have to own one.
Health insurance is the same. Our health needs to be protected, we can't make a living if we are too ill to go to work, and it is the responsible thing to do. But we do "own" our health, no choice here except suicide.
People who refuse to buy insurance are irresponsible. And most of those who claim they can't afford it are liars.
Companies who offer benefits do so for the reasons you state, but when we compete with overseas companies, we are behind the curve.
Employee Benefits are archaic, and will be gone in a few more generations.
 
UtahBill said:
I also want employers to stop offering health insurance and pension plans.
Click to expand...

Actually that would probably spur faster reform than trying to fix the problem through Obama cares. Most of the people with insurance in this country have insurance through their employer. Most people who have insurance through their employer do not know the total cost of that insurance. It creates stupid internet comments like "They bought a big screen TV instead of insurance" (not quoting anyone specific, just a generic example.) You could buy a big screen TV each month instead of buying insurance. If we eliminate employer subsidized insurance and people realized just how much it really cost, they'd probably care more about that and want it fixed.
 
vvx said:
Actually that would probably spur faster reform than trying to fix the problem through Obama cares. Most of the people with insurance in this country have insurance through their employer. Most people who have insurance through their employer do not know the total cost of that insurance. It creates stupid internet comments like "They bought a big screen TV instead of insurance" (not quoting anyone specific, just a generic example.) You could buy a big screen TV each month instead of buying insurance. If we eliminate employer subsidized insurance and people realized just how much it really cost, they'd probably care more about that and want it fixed.
Click to expand...
and there would be more competition among the companies. They either provide good service at a competitive rate, or they go out of business.
 
conservativeguy said:
Name the case where the commerce clause was used to regulate non activity. A case that forces every person in the country to buy a product or be subject to a fine/tax, whatever you want to call it.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been one, that I'm aware of. Doesn't change the fact that, under Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Congress is entitled to enact any law that's even remotely connected to interstate commerce. This isn't even close.

It should be obvious that it's constitutional as they could have done exactly the same thing by passing a tax instead of a penalty. Instead of charging a penalty for failure to buy insurance you charge *everyone* $95/yr. on their tax bill, refundable upon proof of insurance.

According to your logic, Congress has already passed a law requiring everyone in the country to buy a home on credit, because people can deduct their mortgage interest.

It's just trumped up outrage over a plan originally conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation at the behest of Republicans.
 
AdamT said:
There hasn't been one, that I'm aware of. Doesn't change the fact that, under Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Congress is entitled to enact any law that's even remotely connected to interstate commerce. This isn't even close.

It should be obvious that it's constitutional as they could have done exactly the same thing by passing a tax instead of a penalty. Instead of charging a penalty for failure to buy insurance you charge *everyone* $95/yr. on their tax bill, refundable upon proof of insurance.

According to your logic, Congress has already passed a law requiring everyone in the country to buy a home on credit, because people can deduct their mortgage interest.

It's just trumped up outrage over a plan originally conceived by the conservative Heritage Foundation at the behest of Republicans.
Click to expand...
. If SCOTUS approves this extension of the already out of control Commerce Clause rulings, the rest of the Constitution is meaningless.
 
Apparently conservatives don't understand the democratic process when it involves them not getting their way. Boo-hoo. From what I heard, on conservative talk radio, this ruling came down from a conservative judge.
 
conservativeguy said:
. If SCOTUS approves this extension of the already out of control Commerce Clause rulings, the rest of the Constitution is meaningless.
Click to expand...
only if commerce is at the core of your religion....are you ferengi?:2razz:
 
I wish health insurance were actually interstate commerce... i'd love to have the option to buy insurance from other states.
 
Thrilla said:
I wish health insurance were actually interstate commerce... i'd love to have the option to buy insurance from other states.
Click to expand...

I doubt that you would. The end result would be a race to the bottom, with each state trying to attract insurance companies by eliminating consumer protections. You'd end up with a situation where all the insurance companies were located in [low ball state] because [low ball state] has bad faith laws so weak as to be meaningless.
 
AdamT said:
I doubt that you would. The end result would be a race to the bottom, with each state trying to attract insurance companies by eliminating consumer protections. You'd end up with a situation where all the insurance companies were located in [low ball state] because [low ball state] has bad faith laws so weak as to be meaningless.
Click to expand...

Or you could end up with the consumer being able to tailor their purchase to their individual need and means...kind of like buying a TV.
 
Mycroft said:
Or you could end up with the consumer being able to tailor their purchase to their individual need and means...kind of like buying a TV.
Click to expand...

Health care i not a point of purchase item. Who knows you might wind up some rare congenital heart defect and there ain't no warranty on that!
 
winston53660 said:
Health care i not a point of purchase item. Who knows you might wind up some rare congenital heart defect and there ain't no warranty on that!
Click to expand...

Health care isn't...but health insurance is.

Try not to confuse the two, eh?
 
conservativeguy said:
. If SCOTUS approves this extension of the already out of control Commerce Clause rulings, the rest of the Constitution is meaningless.
Click to expand...

When the federal government can control any activity or non-activity that is even remotely connected to interstate commerce, it is virtually unlimited in its scope of powers.

So much for a federal government with limited, enumerated powers.
 
Mycroft said:
Or you could end up with the consumer being able to tailor their purchase to their individual need and means...kind of like buying a TV.
Click to expand...

You can already tailor your insurance to your individual needs and means, but you still have all the protections provided by your state's insurance regulations.

Of course most people are stuck with whatever their employer provides. The health care reform law will give most people five times the choice they have now, but somehow that's a bad thing when Obama is responsible for it. :roll:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/COLOR][/FONT]
Click to expand...

This is a victory for those that support the law. The multiple previous suits that held it unconstitutional were a victory for those that don't support the law. All of these battles are nothing but minor skirmishes in the larger context of the "war". None of these significantly really matter. The battle that will matter is the final one that both sides are inevitably moving towards in the SCOTUS.
 
AdamT said:
You can already tailor your insurance to your individual needs and means, but you still have all the protections provided by your state's insurance regulations.

Of course most people are stuck with whatever their employer provides. The health care reform law will give most people five times the choice they have now, but somehow that's a bad thing when Obama is responsible for it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Why settle for five times the choice. Why not unlimited choice?

Anyway, your first sentence is incorrect.

I cannot pick and choose what health care I want my insurance to cover. I have to take the package. That means I have to take the costs of whatever protections my State decides that I need...whether I want them or not. Those costs are what is driving up insurance premiums. Now, add to that Obamacare and you've taken away the last choice I ever had...choosing to not buy any health insurance.


Screw Obamacare.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Your right a law made through the legislative process is "treasonous"?
But wait, how is this treasonous?
Click to expand...

It usurps the rights and freedoms of the people for the power of the government.
 
AdamT said:
You can already tailor your insurance to your individual needs and means, but you still have all the protections provided by your state's insurance regulations.

Of course most people are stuck with whatever their employer provides. The health care reform law will give most people five times the choice they have now, but somehow that's a bad thing when Obama is responsible for it. :roll:
Click to expand...
obama stole most of it from the republicans plan....:roll:
 
Mycroft said:
Why settle for five times the choice. Why not unlimited choice?

Anyway, your first sentence is incorrect.

I cannot pick and choose what health care I want my insurance to cover. I have to take the package. That means I have to take the costs of whatever protections my State decides that I need...whether I want them or not. Those costs are what is driving up insurance premiums. Now, add to that Obamacare and you've taken away the last choice I ever had...choosing to not buy any health insurance.


Screw Obamacare.
Click to expand...
so you can afford a heart transplant out of your own pocket? what are we to do with people who can afford the insurance but just choose to not buy it, let them die? That would be my choice, if we are talking mature, competent adults...
 
ksu_aviator said:
It usurps the rights and freedoms of the people for the power of the government.
Click to expand...
the people ARE the govt....if the people choose it, and they have so far, then the govt must supply it...
 
The core issue of this Health Care law being debated is whether or not the government has the ability to force citizens to purchase a commercial product, Health Care Insurance. I, personally have other issues with it, but that is not the topic here. The fact that it is Health Care Insurance sparks emotional reactions. If the government was making everyone buy a TV, then, hands down, pretty much everyone would be against it. But essentially, it is the same thing, both are commercial products provided by private corporations.

In the past, States, not the Federal Government, started requiring a minimum coverage of Liability Auto Insurance. One of the primary differences between the current issue and mandatory Liability Insurance is who is making the mandate, Federal vs State. The main reason states adopted the Mandatory Liability Auto Insurance, unlike the reason someone else mentioned, was to reduce Health Care cost associated with Uninsured drivers causing accidents and not having insurance to pay for the Health Care costs that they caused. Admittedly, cost of property loss also played a role but was not the actual logic used advocates of the laws to pass these laws. I am against these laws also, as I do not believe that any level of government should be able to force people to buy a commercial product. Also, as was publicly noted in the past, after the last state adopted these laws, Auto insurance skyrocketed in costs. I have absolutely not belief that if mandatory Health Care is enforced, the cost will not skyrocket in the same manor. As to the argument that owning a vehicle is optional, this may indeed apply to some people, but, people who live in areas with little to no public transportation or inefficient public transportation, still have to get to work. Also, people in agriculture have to get their products to market, they are not given a choice in owning a vehicle, they could of course choose a different line of work, but if they all chose that option, what would we eat?

Mandatory Home Owners Insurance? This thread is the first I have ever heard of this. Is this really a law someplace? The only requirements for me to have Home Owners Insurance comes from the Mortgage Company and the VA which backed the loan.

For those who support this Law, keep in mind that a government agency will be the one determining if you can afford Health Care Insurance, not you. Most likely they will use a formula to determine this. Very simple, if you make X amount of money in wages then you can afford Y Health Care Insurance package with adjustments made for the number of people in your household. Your individual costs for food, housing and transportation will, most likely, not be taken into consideration, a one-size fits all formula will be used. If the government follows it previous forms, then the country will be broken down into economic regions and the cost of food, housing and transportation will be averaged for a particular region. Lets say that one region incorporates North East Texas, This would include the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metro area but would also include all the small towns and rural communities in that region. Housing and Food costs are much higher in DFW than in rural areas and smaller communities, however, the government would use the average for the entire region to base it's decision on whether or not you can afford Heath Care Insurance. Even within a city, should the government decide to use only averaging inside that city, there are extreme variances in costs, especially in housing.

Remember, an Elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications.
 
UtahBill said:
so you can afford a heart transplant out of your own pocket? what are we to do with people who can afford the insurance but just choose to not buy it, let them die? That would be my choice, if we are talking mature, competent adults...
Click to expand...

I am all for the right of people to make their own decisions...and reaping the benefits and consequences of their decisions.

I will always resist the government making decisions for the people.
 
This thing is going to the SCOTUS no matter what happens. If Conservatives take back the presidency and the senate we have a good chance to throw Obama cae in the trash can where it belongs....
 
UtahBill said:
We buy car insurance for multiple reasons, to protect our investment in the car should it get damaged, to protect our assets in case we cause an accident, and because it is the responsible thing to do. It is required by law. We can only forego car insurance by not owning one.
Same for home insuarance, protect ourselves and it is the responsible thing to do. again, we don't have to own one.
Health insurance is the same. Our health needs to be protected, we can't make a living if we are too ill to go to work, and it is the responsible thing to do. But we do "own" our health, no choice here except suicide.
People who refuse to buy insurance are irresponsible. And most of those who claim they can't afford it are liars.
Companies who offer benefits do so for the reasons you state, but when we compete with overseas companies, we are behind the curve.
Employee Benefits are archaic, and will be gone in a few more generations.
Click to expand...

You can forego car insurance by not driving it on public roads. Owning a car without insurance is not illegal. Driving one on public roads is.

You can forego home owners insurance by not financing your home. Perfectly legal. Responsibility is not a legal requirement to live in the United States, otherwise we'd have to arrest 4/5s of the population, and deport them.

Health insurance is not the same. The only way to foredo IT, if this bill passes, is to not live. And since attempting to commit suicide is also illegal...one could draw the conclusion there this, then, would completely remove legal choice on the matter. Insurance does not protect out health, WE do. Insurance is just a means of passing the cost of our health needs onto another, socializing it among a group. We do, or we SHOULD, own ourselves. That is the basis for freedom. Self ownership. If YOU don't own yourself...who does? Seems to me, it's the people that can dictate how I live.

Most people who can't afford health insurance are people who don't get it as a perk at their job. Otherwise, trying to buy into a single family plan, from, say, Cobra, IS extremely expensive. Why? Because less people do it, and therefore there are fewer people to share the cost, should you actually need to USE said insurance. And again, responsibility is not a requirement for citizenship of this country, otherwise, we'd have to get rid of a great many people.

What you need to try to understand is that we are talking about INSURANCE, not health care. Personally, I'm waiting to see if something like this actually DOES come about...because I am of a mind that if it does, I'm going to invest heavily in health insurance companies, prior. Because after, their stocks are going to SKYROCKET.

Why? because they will be the next latest, government backed, government ENFORCED, business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom