Page 16 of 122 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666116 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #151
    Dangerous Spinmaster
    RightOfCenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Last Seen
    04-14-12 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,736

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    you're likely correct, but intrusion implies something different. Providing access, opening doors, meeting needs and solving problems doesn't seem to fit the definition of intrusion to me.

    in·tru·sion
       [in-troo-zhuhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    an act or instance of intruding.
    2.
    the state of being intruded.
    3.
    Law .
    a.
    an illegal act of entering, seizing, or taking possession of another's property.
    b.
    a wrongful entry after the determination of a particular estate, made before the remainderman or reversioner has entered.

    Intrusion | Define Intrusion at Dictionary.com
    in·trude   [in-trood] Show IPA verb, -trud·ed, -trud·ing.
    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by SWM
    I never thought infanticide could be so delicious.

  2. #152
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    I don't buy the argument that people who aren't purchasing health insurance are driving prices up. It's this law requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who wants insurance that is driving up prices. The only real way to create a healthcare system that is going to both work and comply with the Constitution is a single-payer system.
    It is certainly the uninsured, in part, who drive up health care costs. Inevitably many of them go to emergency rooms for treatment and they can't pay their bills. In order to cover that expense hospitals raise their rates, which in turn increases everyone's insurance costs. But the main reason for the requirement is that you can't tell insurance companies they have to cover people with preexisting conditions unless provide some method to dissuade people from going bare until they get sick, and only then buying insurance. That would take a lot of healthy people out of the insurance pool, thus raising rates for everyone else. In other words, the mandate is part and parcel of the regulation of the health care market as a whole.

    And isn't it absurd to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to impose this penalty, which would affect about 2% of the population, but it DOES have the power to impose a full-blown national health care system?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #153
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    in·trude   [in-trood] Show IPA verb, -trud·ed, -trud·ing.
    verb (used with object)
    1.
    to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome.
    Again, I don't think that is what it amounts to. if it comes about, it will be through elected representatives, who will invite, to meet a need and solve a problem. For those without, it opens and not closes a door. It frees them to have some sembelance of security and care when needed.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Interesting that Jim Demint would support the mandate, since he is on Romney's short list for VP.
    I am taking both off my Christmas list.

  5. #155
    Dangerous Spinmaster
    RightOfCenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Last Seen
    04-14-12 @ 04:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,736

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It is certainly the uninsured, in part, who drive up health care costs. Inevitably many of them go to emergency rooms for treatment and they can't pay their bills. In order to cover that expense hospitals raise their rates, which in turn increases everyone's insurance costs.
    The mandate isn't aimed at people who can't pay their bills. It's aimed at people who can afford health insurance but choose not purchase it.

    But the main reason for the requirement is that you can't tell insurance companies they have to cover people with preexisting conditions unless provide some method to dissuade people from going bare until they get sick, and only then buying insurance. That would take a lot of healthy people out of the insurance pool, thus raising rates for everyone else. In other words, the mandate is part and parcel of the regulation of the health care market as a whole.
    As Scalia said today, the solution here is to not tell insurance companies that they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It is still creating commerce by forcing people to purchase a product they do not want.


    And isn't it absurd to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to impose this penalty, which would affect about 2% of the population, but it DOES have the power to impose a full-blown national health care system?
    First, the text in bold is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the argument. Second, no. As you have said, the health care system is obviously an interstate commerce issue as it is nearly 20% of our GDP. My problem with the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate.
    Quote Originally Posted by SWM
    I never thought infanticide could be so delicious.

  6. #156
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by RightOfCenter View Post
    The mandate isn't aimed at people who can't pay their bills. It's aimed at people who can afford health insurance but choose not purchase it.


    As Scalia said today, the solution here is to not tell insurance companies that they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It is still creating commerce by forcing people to purchase a product they do not want.



    First, the text in bold is completely irrelevant to the Constitutionality of the argument. Second, no. As you have said, the health care system is obviously an interstate commerce issue as it is nearly 20% of our GDP. My problem with the Affordable Care Act is the individual mandate.
    Well no disrespect to Justice Scalia, but he isn't in Congress and it isn't his business to tell them what policies they should pursue. The preexisting condition issue is one of the main problems that the Act set out to address. Another issue is people who are free riding in the existing system.

    I'm surprised that the oral argument didn't bring up the fact that this is NOT the first time that Congress has mandated that Americans purchase something. In fact in the Second Militia Act of 1792, none other than our Founding Fathers mandated that able bodied men purchase firearms and supplies.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #157
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,591

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    In a nutshell? Congress has almost unfettered power to regulate interestate commerce, and the health care system is interstate commerce writ about as large as it gets. The test is whether Congress has stated a rational basis for the law, and that they undoubtedly have. The Supreme Court has held that the interstate commerce clause allowed Congress to prevent a man from growing wheat on his own farm for his own consumption. That should give you some idea how far reaching it is.
    But they've never required anyone to purchase anything before.

    Reconcile that. If it's a "no-brainer," it shouldn't require much explanation.

    BTW, have you given up the idea that it's also "clearly" a tax?
    Last edited by Harshaw; 03-27-12 at 09:03 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #158
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,591

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well no disrespect to Justice Scalia, but he isn't in Congress and it isn't his business to tell them what policies they should pursue. The preexisting condition issue is one of the main problems that the Act set out to address. Another issue is people who are free riding in the existing system.

    I'm surprised that the oral argument didn't bring up the fact that this is NOT the first time that Congress has mandated that Americans purchase something. In fact in the Second Militia Act of 1792, none other than our Founding Fathers mandated that able bodied men purchase firearms and supplies.
    The Militia Act wasn't an exercise of the Commerce Clause.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #159
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    But they've never required anyone to purchase anything before.

    Reconcile that. If it's a "no-brainer," it shouldn't require much explanation.

    BTW, have you given up the idea that it's also "clearly" a tax?
    I believe I JUST got through saying that they have required people to purchase things before. And "they" in this case was the Founding Fathers themselves.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #160
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    The Militia Act wasn't an exercise of the Commerce Clause.
    True. So your argument would be that Congress has unfettered power to force people to buy things, but only in connection with the militia clause?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •