• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

iliveonramen said:
Honestly....if the mandate is shot down it's a pretty short run victory for Conservatism. You basically take off the table the "conservative" option of fixing healthcare and holding down costs. All that's pretty much left is an employer mandate or single payer. It may not be in 5 or 10 years but healcare will be revisited and now the "free market" option may be off the table via a conservative supreme court.
Click to expand...

Thats very nice spin... but it will basically overturn the crown jewel of President Obama's first term. That will have a domino effect. Now while disneydude blames "getting stuck with" the mandate and blames it on blue-dogs and Republicans, the fact is Pelosi and Reid were the architects of this bill and they saw this as the best option to get passed by Congress. No one twisted Pelosi or Reid or Obama's arm. Obama gave this to his Democratic friends and was instrubmental in it's crafting as well as it's support - remember he supported this bill for over a year. The blame stuff doesn't flush nor does minimizing the political fallout of this being overturned.

What this will do is make it very difficult for people and States to understand what they need to do. The question then quickly becomes when Congress goes back to square one and either saves portions of the bill or starts over, how and what will it look like? Will it get passed by Congress? Polarization will be at an all time high if it's struck down in June and nothing will happen until after the election. So we're looking at 2013 before this is even broached again, unless some emergency provisions are put in place so the entire health care system doesn't collapse... what it will do is provide yet another opportunity for American citizens to vote for Congressional membership who will, hopefully, put in place a revised health care system that doesn't bankrupt us and that can cover the most amount of people without forcing people to purchase said insurance.
 
Arbo said:
Anyone but me notice that 99.9% of the lefts arguments FOR the mandate, have nothing to do with the Constitution. It all goes back to 'fairness' and other nonsense.
Click to expand...

The supreme court can easily rule in the case without allowing their ruling to affect anything else. Since health care is a unique case and because of how broad the commerce clause is the argument could very well stand in court based on the constitution based on general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause, commerce clause and right of taxing and levying fines.

Arbo said:
Looking mighty left.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm simply saying how, either way the court rules Obama can claim victory. See I was right its constitutional or see I was right about the public option. I personally would prefer insurance to go nacho to being just catastrophic coverage and have the various monopolies

The sun always shines on a fool
Harshaw said:
Has not one whit to do with constitutionality.
Click to expand...

it does, but the heritage foundations arguments in support of the law do since they did do a "is it constitutional" test (like they do witty most things). See above

The sun always shines on a fool
 
buck said:
And what did democrats say about the original propsals that a few conservatives (but most did not) like?
Click to expand...
Don't know and don't care since I'm none of those - and all of them, depending on the topic. :shrug:


When a person opts out of health care, as in they can afford it but choose not to, then they should expect the ambulance to leave them lying at the side of the road if they have an accident.

When a person opts out of health care for 30 years, while others pay during that 30 years, then they should expect to pay a LOT more if they decide to opt in at age 50. If the insurance companies worked that way I wouldn't have a problem with it. If you've opted out for 30 years and can't afford it at age 50 that's not my problem. If you get seriously ill at 40 and want to opt in but can't afford it that's not my problem. If you have had the ability to pay and didn't then don't expect me to cover your ass when I've been paying all along. But unlike most liberals I'm perfectly happy and willing to let your carcass rot in the ditch if you decide to opt out - good food for raccoon, fox, and other wildlife. :)



Ed:
I think social health care is a good thing but I won't force anyone to join. But to me it's a one-time offer. You're in or you're out - no changing your mind later unless you're willing to pay a huge fee - cash up front - to make up for your lack of prior investment. It's like a retirement account. If you expect your IRA to yield $200k after you retire, but you wait 'til you're 50 to start investing, then you'll have to pay a lot more into the account then I will if I started at 20.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
The mandate was a poor Republican idea that we got stuck with when a handful of bluedogs joined the Republicans in opposing the public option which was a far superior idea. I hope that this POS DOES get squashed and we can go back to getting what the American people wanted in the first place, a strong healthcare law with the public option.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, you have a short memory. The public option is precisely what the public didn't want.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I didn't forget. Nor did I forget that the Democrats screamed 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' at the time. And eventually the GOP figured out that the Dems were right hence dropping it. Now it appears the roles have been reversed. What happened? Did the Dems forget their arguing point or are they just being contrarian?
Click to expand...

Wow, you have a fertile imagination! :lol:
 
AdamT said:
Thanks for trying, but it's still an idiotic argument. You see, health insurance, like all insurance, is about probability. Even if you aren't sick now, your participation or lack of partiicpation in the insurance market affects everyone's costs.
Click to expand...

But car insurance is not mandate by the Constitution. As Kennedy pointed out, "asking whether Congress’s power to regulate commerce allows it to create commerce to then regulate" is constitutional.
 
Harshaw said:
:lamo

You did no such thing. Nothing I said had anything to do with who pays for what.

"Will do" does not equal "is doing," and to say it does is idiotic. That's my argument. You haven't touched it. I think you know you can't, so you have to throw as much spaghetti against the wall as you possibly can in order to distract.
Click to expand...

I did. Go back and look. But to address my point, it has to. otherwise, it's an apple to tree frog comparison, which it was actually.

And as a group, they do. It is doing. We know that will happen.
 
Thunder said:
Richard Nixon pushed for a national healthcare system. If Obamacare is struck down, hopefully this country will find it in its brain & heart to follow the wisdom of Nixon on this issue.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if we could as a country get beyond the misinformation and fear mongering that opponents will present to actually discuss merit of such a plan.
 
Boo Radley said:
I did. Go back and look.
Click to expand...

I did. You didn't. If you did, point me to it.


But to address my point, it has to. otherwise, it's an apple to tree frog comparison, which it was actually.

And as a group, they do. It is doing. We know that will happen.
Click to expand...

It "has to" in order for your argument that the mandate is constitutional to work, sure. But that's not the same as it being correct. It's not. Period.
 
AdamT said:
Wow, you have a fertile imagination! :lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment. Were you even born in '93 when this came up previously? I was. And I do remember.
 
Harshaw said:
I did. You didn't. If you did, point me to it.




It "has to" in order for your argument that the mandate is constitutional to work, sure. But that's not the same as it being correct. It's not. Period.
Click to expand...

Post 318. And the Constitutional issue is another issue altogether, which is currently being decided by the courts, as it should be.

The point is effectively, you cannot opt of of something that will happen sooner or later, and for a number when it happens, that cost is passed on to us. As there is no way to know in advance who, the only way yo plan for it is to cover all. As a group, they are right now engaged. the uninsured are right now receiving the care, thus engaged in commerce.
 
Ockham said:
A lack of a response indicates nothing, and you still didn't.

:coffeepap:
Click to expand...


Have comprehension issues? Nothing to be ashamed of. But I can help. Ask questions if you're confused.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not well. I see no response from you to post 318.
Click to expand...

What, this?

Boo Radley said:
It's really far too simple. I don't have to pay for your death. Your death doesn't run up my costs of dying. There is no real commerce involved. Here, I can bury you in the back yard. I promise I'll give your family a good deal. ;)

With health care, that cost is passed on. Those who are responsible pay for those who guess wrong. So, your irresponsibility is passed on to others.
Click to expand...

Did you not understand me when I said:

Harshaw said:
:lamo

You did no such thing. Nothing I said had anything to do with who pays for what.
Click to expand...

I say again:

"Will do" does not equal "is doing," and to say it does is idiotic. That's my argument. You haven't touched it. I think you know you can't, so you have to throw as much spaghetti against the wall as you possibly can in order to distract.
Click to expand...

So no, you have not addressed that argument, "directly" or otherwise. You instead argued about what you preferred I would have said, but didn't.
 
Latest from the Supremes

http://www.scotusblog.com/

Here is the last sentence of the summary.

"All that said, the challengers have more to cheer about tonight than does the administration, which needs one more vote and has at best two potential fifth votes, both of whom seemed deeply skeptical of the individual mandate’s constitutionality today."
 
Harshaw said:
What, this?



Did you not understand me when I said:



I say again:



So no, you have not addressed that argument, "directly" or otherwise. You instead argued about what you preferred I would have said, but didn't.
Click to expand...

That's not really an answer. The response was that your example doesn't apply as it does not take into consideration who pays for it. If you don't include the cost and passing on of that cost, your example doesn't work. Pointing this out is addressing your point.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's not really an answer. The response was that your example doesn't apply as it does not take into consideration who pays for it. If you don't include the cost and passing on of that cost, your example doesn't work. Pointing this out is addressing your point.
Click to expand...

That, too, is idiotic. It's just more spaghetti. "Will do" does not equal "is doing." There is no other "consideration," period.
 
Harshaw said:
That, too, is idiotic. It's just more spaghetti. "Will do" does not equal "is doing." There is no other "consideration," period.
Click to expand...

Nope. it is happening right now. Go to your er. The uninsured are being treated. As a group, they are engaged in commerce rigth now, consuming and passing on the cost to all of those responsible enough to be insured.
 
Some support:

As increasing numbers of the unemployed and uninsured turn to the nation’s emergency rooms as a medical last resort, doctors warn that the centers — many already overburdened — could have even more trouble handling the heart attacks, broken bones and other traumas that define their core mission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emergency.html?pagewanted=all

Tennesseans with toothaches end up in hospital emergency rooms because so many of the state’s residents do not have dental insurance and cannot afford preventive care, according to a report released Tuesday by The Pew Center on the States.

Toothaches send uninsured into emergency rooms | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

New Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-Fifth of Emergency Room Visits

New Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-Fifth of Emergency Room Visits

Just the first three of a simple search.
 
disneydude said:
Wrong. The American people wanted the public option. They don't want what we got.
Click to expand...

I think that is mostly correct, but minority voices like the tea party had a huge effect. they took the death panel lie to stupid proportions and clouded the issue for many. This help lead to the poor compromise position.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. it is happening right now. Go to your er. The uninsured are being treated. As a group, they are engaged in commerce rigth now, consuming and passing on the cost to all of those responsible enough to be insured.
Click to expand...

This is a different argument (which is, of course, the only avenue you had to do down), and it has its own failing -- "the uninsured" isn't an identifiable person. This mandate is against individuals, not groups or statistics.

But to indulge some of your spaghetti, as you've pretty much given up on the logical point:

Tell me . . . how do you know that an such uninsured 20-something won't have insurance or other means to pay when the time comes to seek medical care? Answer: you don't. Your "will do = is doing" argument fails on that ground alone as a practical argument, even if it wasn't logically idiotic.

Moreover, the type of person most likely to remain uninsured when the time comes to seek medical care -- the low-income -- are exempted by this mandate, so as a practical argument it fails pretty miserably, too.

But as I said, that's just your spaghetti. Your logical argument continues to be vapid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom