• 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

Ockham said:
States do not require people to purchase cars, nor purchase houses.... which invalidates your "requirement" argument as it applies to ObamaCare and the mandate.
Click to expand...

Not to derail the thread but they should. There is this brilliant professor in Michigan named Karen Robert who has written a few articles on the way in which car ownership or lack or thereof contribute to economic mobility. She has supported it by pointing at examples all over the world from both growing economic power houses and existing industrialized nations. At the very least states should create incentives for people to buy cars.
 
Thunder said:
come on ms., it was a polite & friendly request.

there's no need for that.
Click to expand...

You could go read it yourself... just sayin'....
 
Shouldn't they rule, in part, based on the fact that this is now determined by the CBO to be twice as expensive as when it was sold to us?
 
Erod said:
Shouldn't they rule, in part, based on the fact that this is now determined by the CBO to be twice as expensive as when it was sold to us?
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo

NO!!
 
I got through about 1/4 of the transcript. Most of the first part is discussing, as Maggie said, whether the penalty constitutes a tax so as to implicate the Anti-Injunction Act. And the main part of that discussion dealt with the interpretationof the AIA itself, i.e. whether or not it is "jurisdictional". That's significant because, if it is jurisdictional, the government cannot waive the issue of the plaintiffs' standing. In other words, if the AIA applies and if it's jurisdictional, the Court couldn't decide the issue until a penalty was actually imposed, someone sued over it, and administrative remedies were exhausted -- even though the government wants the Court to decide on the merits now.
 
MaggieD said:
I think the individual mandate will be upheld.

The Federal government has the power to tax, that's a given. Does it have the power to tax if you don't do something? I think SCOTUS will find that it does. If not, Obamacare is gutted.
Click to expand...
Yes, if the individual mandate is rejected, Obamcare loses its ability to "attract" customers to "Fed Cross" in sufficient numbers to adequately fund everyone's medical procedures, thereby making approval of procedures funded by the government insurance carrier much more dfficult to obtain than privately and at least equally as expensive regarding deductible and co-pay.

Without the individual mandate, all we (mostly) do is just add another medical insurance carrier to the list, a government-run medical insurance carrier.
 
Ontologuy said:
...Without the individual mandate, all we (mostly) do is just add another medical insurance carrier to the list, a government-run medical insurance carrier.
Click to expand...

um....what are you talking about?

their is no government-controlled healthcare insurance, as part of Obamacare.
 
Thunder said:
um....what are you talking about?

their is no government-controlled healthcare insurance, as part of Obamacare.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true .. for now.

We all know what the Obamacare goal is, though: socialized medicine, with Fed Cross as the single-payer.

Best to push the camel's nose out from under the tent now .. or the rest is sure to follow later.

Indeed, if the individual mandate falls .. the camel may be humped!
 
Ontologuy said:
Absolutely true .. for now.

We all know what the Obamacare goal is, though: socialized medicine, with Fed Cross as the single-payer.

Best to push the camel's nose out from under the tent now .. or the rest is sure to follow later.

Indeed, if the individual mandate falls .. the camel may be ousted
Click to expand...

The conspricy theory forum is further down.
 
Redress said:
The conspricy theory forum is further down.
Click to expand...

Look further down? When I followed your advice, I only saw my crotch.

Wouldn't that make the sex forum a more likely destination?
 
Gardener said:
Look further down? When I followed your advice, I only saw my crotch.

Wouldn't that make the sex forum a more likely destination?
Click to expand...
Probably, 'cause if Obamacare is ever installed full-bore, we'll all get screwed.
 
Gardener said:
Look further down? When I followed your advice, I only saw my crotch.

Wouldn't that make the sex forum a more likely destination?
Click to expand...

I cannot answer that question upstairs.
 
Ontologuy said:
Absolutely true .. for now.

We all know what the Obamacare goal is, though: socialized medicine, with Fed Cross as the single-payer.

Best to push the camel's nose out from under the tent now .. or the rest is sure to follow later.

Indeed, if the individual mandate falls .. the camel may be humped!
Click to expand...

if the individual mandate fails, we take a step closer to UHC, as we should have in the first place. if mandating individual participation in the private health insurance market due to the inevitability of eventual need is found to fall outside of the commerce clause, an expansion of medicare to address the same problem won't be.

the mandate is among the last, best hopes of prolonging our inefficient, employer-based, for-profit health insurance boondoggle. that's probably why Republican think tanks backed it before Obama entered the equation.
 
Ontologuy said:
Without the individual mandate, all we (mostly) do is just add another medical insurance carrier to the list, a government-run medical insurance carrier.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.

The other poor saps who lose their jobs, try to go in business for themselves, or retire early are left out in the cold when they are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or those pre-existing conditions are excluded.

The individual mandate is absolutely essential. Without it, insurance premiums will skyrocket.
 
Helix said:
if the individual mandate fails, we take a step closer to UHC, as we should have in the first place. if mandating individual participation in the private health insurance market due to the inevitability of eventual need is found to fall outside of the commerce clause, an expansion of medicare to address the same problem won't be.

the mandate is among the last, best hopes of prolonging our inefficient, employer-based, for-profit health insurance boondoggle. that's probably why Republican think tanks backed it before Obama entered the equation.
Click to expand...
Best is to remove employers from the discrimination-in-hiring causing burden of providing healthcare policies.

Every citizen would then have more options in the private sector, to choose what they wish, and the un- and under- employed would no longer be directly doubly discriminated against.

What was really missing from Obamacare and suggested alternatives was a very sophisticated and powerful cost management body created in the private sector.

The problem with healthcare is foundationally in the cost of raw and manufactured materials and labor, a problem that isn't resolved by Obamacare.

This is the problem that needs to be dealt with, so that healthcare providers can still mak a decent living and so many citizens aren't priced out of the healthcare market.
 
MaggieD said:
Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.

The other poor saps who lose their jobs, try to go in business for themselves, or retire early are left out in the cold when they are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions or those pre-existing conditions are excluded.

The individual mandate is absolutely essential. Without it, insurance premiums will skyrocket.
Click to expand...

Bingo. The idea behind the mandate is not to force people to buy insurance if they don't want to. The idea is that you can't outlaw denial for preexisting conditions without doing something to prevent abuse. If people don't have to buy insurance, and an insurer can't deny people for preexisting conditions, many people would simply not buy insurance UNTIL they got sick. In other words, they would free ride on everyone else, driving up costs for those who have some semblance of moral fiber.
 
MaggieD said:
Actually, it's more than that. The other wonderful thing about Obamacare is that insurance carriers will no longer be able to exclude individuals based on pre-existing conditions. This is a Godsend to millions of people.

In group insurance, those covered by their employers, the group is not allowed to exclude covering an employee because of pre-existing conditions. It's been that way forever. And everyone employed by a company with a group policy must be enrolled. That's why most people don't understand what the problem is -- most people get group health insurance.
Click to expand...

there are some exceptions.

my group plan contains a "pre-existing condition limitation" clause. that means that if i am currently being treated for a condition that i was being treated for six months prior to employment, my coverage could be denied for up to 12 months. they waive this limitation if i seamlessly maintained health insurance coverage immediately prior to my current employment.

luckily for me, i did. those who didn't or couldn't are pretty much screwed for a year.

i suspect that such limitations might be able to be inserted into plans even now, so the pre-existing condition portion of the law might have some loopholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom