• 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

They are going to punt on the individual mandate. Since you cannot sue about taxes until after you have gone into effect, and that portion does not go into effect till 2014, they will not rule on that portion. They actually have ~1/3 of the time scheduled to discuss standing on that portion of the suit.

Interesting, I haven't heard that theory yet. Makes sense though.
 
Not "state" as in Washington or California. State as in government.

And they are all over the place.

WTF are you talking about? There are no federal hospitals unless you're talking about the VA?
 
WTF are you talking about? There are no federal hospitals unless you're talking about the VA?

Lets put it this way. What competition is there when each hospital has "districts"?

Much like a police district a hospital serves a certain area and no other hospital does. These districts are, among other things, determined by how quick an ambulance can get from the hospital to its destination.

So lets say we have 2 hospitals within in 10 miles of each other. Hospital A services 5 of those miles and Hospital B services the other 5 miles. Now lets say that an accident occurs 2 miles away from hospital A. Are the cops going to call Hospital A? Or Hospital B? They are going to call Hospital A of course. Why? Because the ambulance from Hospital A will get there faster than Hospitals B's ambulance would get there. The person/people that got into the accident does not have a say in which hospital to go to...and even if they did they would more than likely want to go to the nearest one.

That is what I mean by state sponsored hospitals. The state decides where the person goes, not the person.

Hope this clairfies what I am talking about.
 
So who's up for taking John Roberts out for tequila shots and find out how this thing played out?
 
Do away with the mandate and the law is gone.

j-mac

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here: you don't like the mandate, that's easy, but what about "the law is gone"?
 
Where are these "state sponsored" hospitals you're talking about?

They're known as "county hospitals". The idea of single payer has been aroud a lot longer than people may think.
 
and have you read the whole bill and understand it completely?

I will admit I have read sections, but there is no way I read every page.

I'm not the one making the national decision on the constitutionality of a proposed bill. Scalia et al are. They have a fiduciary responsibility to know what they are talking about; just as though a man's life were on trial . . . (It's not about the question: it's about the duties of the supreme court). And secondly, I wonder why not one them asked why this bill has to be 2700 pages in the first place?
 
Do you have some kind of support for your assertions that all the other Justices are having their clerks read the law, and Scalia isn't? 'Coz the little blurb you linked to says nothing of the kind.

I am trying to source that quote now. I heard it in a report on the radio . . . If I cannot source it, then I will certainly retact it.
 
I'm not the one making the national decision on the constitutionality of a proposed bill. Scalia et al are. They have a fiduciary responsibility to know what they are talking about; just as though a man's life were on trial . . . (It's not about the question: it's about the duties of the supreme court). And secondly, I wonder why not one them asked why this bill has to be 2700 pages in the first place?

Actually they did ask why the bill was so big. Though not in so many words.
 
They're known as "county hospitals". The idea of single payer has been aroud a lot longer than people may think.

Those to. I was thinking more along the lines of the districts though because they affect private hospitals also.
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here: you don't like the mandate, that's easy, but what about "the law is gone"?
I believe he's referring to the exclusion of the severability clause in the bill itself.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here: you don't like the mandate, that's easy, but what about "the law is gone"?

The truth is that they could replace the mandate with a tax credit like the one in the Ryan budget. It would do exactly the same thing and it would be 100% constitutional.
 
The truth is that they could replace the mandate with a tax credit like the one in the Ryan budget. It would do exactly the same thing and it would be 100% constitutional.

A tax credit is just an incentive. It would help those that have insurance and because of that it would encourage people to get insurance. Because it is an incentive there is still a choice. A mandate requires people to get insurance period, no choice in the matter. As such they are not the same. Not even close to the same.

But I do agree with you that it would be Constitutional.
 
So all you have is anecdotal impressions.... That's convincing. :roll:

Yeah, I guess factual reality can be considered 'anecdotal impressions' if you don't like what that reality shows. :roll:
 
WTF are you talking about? There are no federal hospitals unless you're talking about the VA?

You have seriously never heard of a local hospital owned by a city or county?
 
I believe that a lot of crap will be sold, but remember, those who need the most will not be able to afford any policy that would actually help them enough to cover costs. A high deductible would be of little help as they wouldn't ba able to afford that (though the real plan many promote is do away with third party payers altogether).

And if there is no insurance, as some argue, then there is no plan to get. Both lead to a significant number without health care.
You see it one way. I see the opposite. Given that the free market tends to work to provide a very wide variety of goods and services with a large number of price points I see no reason why health care would be any different.

When the people have to pay they will shop. When they don't have to pay they don't care what it costs.

When did you first begin to believe that your neighbor should have to pay for the things you want?
 
How many times do YOU have to be told that the health care industry is anything but a free market?
That's doesn't mean ****, okay. We're not socialist yet, despite your best efforts to make us so. The government is deeply involved in healthcare, and always has been as far back as any of us.
 
You see it one way. I see the opposite. Given that the free market tends to work to provide a very wide variety of goods and services with a large number of price points I see no reason why health care would be any different.

When the people have to pay they will shop. When they don't have to pay they don't care what it costs.

When did you first begin to believe that your neighbor should have to pay for the things you want?

The free market cannot work with the way we have everything set up in the healthcare department.
 
Those to. I was thinking more along the lines of the districts though because they affect private hospitals also.

Okay, well, I'm not sure I follow you . . . I was talking about the country hospital system alone. It's been with the US for a long long time: I believe that in the old days, that's all there was. I know that when I was about 4, I got my tonsils out at the county hospital - about, 1961.

I don't know about the district connection you're making.
 
A tax credit is just an incentive. It would help those that have insurance and because of that it would encourage people to get insurance. Because it is an incentive there is still a choice. A mandate requires people to get insurance period, no choice in the matter. As such they are not the same. Not even close to the same.

But I do agree with you that it would be Constitutional.

Its funny though, as they could raise taxes by 700 and then give a credit for those with insurance. It amounts to the exact same thing, yet one is constitutional and the other is not. Its odd how legalities work sometimes.
 
I believe he's referring to the exclusion of the severability clause in the bill itself.

Can you elaborate on that please?
 
The truth is that they could replace the mandate with a tax credit like the one in the Ryan budget. It would do exactly the same thing and it would be 100% constitutional.

Thanks. Ya'know on the constitutional issue of the mandate; in California, 'ya can't drive a car without buying insurance, and employers of, what? 50 or more I think, are mandated to supply health insurance, so I think this thing's gonna fly.

Personally . . . I think that health insurance should be as easily affordable as car or home insurance: life insurance, in fact all insurance companies are taking our money on a bet that nothing's going to happen: think about that. I also don't think that employers should be required to furnish health insurance; and this from a retired Teamster nontheless!! I think that all these mandates and rules have just made the entire thing too expensive.
 
Okay, well, I'm not sure I follow you . . . I was talking about the country hospital system alone. It's been with the US for a long long time: I believe that in the old days, that's all there was. I know that when I was about 4, I got my tonsils out at the county hospital - about, 1961.

I don't know about the district connection you're making.

Post 778 explains what I mean by districts. :)
 
Its funny though, as they could raise taxes by 700 and then give a credit for those with insurance. It amounts to the exact same thing, yet one is constitutional and the other is not. Its odd how legalities work sometimes.

I understand what you're saying so I can agree with you. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom