• 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

It is overwhelmingly likely [...]
Does not make it a fact.


Ed:
And the only facts we will be given about the decision and what was or was not considered are the Court's opinions after the decision is made.
 
Last edited:
I do. At the end of they day, one view will win and one will lose. But it will be part of the question.

This will be the question:

the Constitutional question is whether or not the government can force one private party to enter into a binding contract with another private party?

Whether or not something will be considered as part of the answer is beside the point. It will be the question.
 
Does not make it a fact.

Ed:
And the only facts we will be given about the decision and what was or was not considered are the Court's opinions after the decision is made.

Yet you freely state that it's "not the question" as though it IS fact.
 
This will be the question:

Can the federal government charge a tax penalty if someone can afford health insurance but won't buy it?
 
Yet you freely state that it's "not the question" as though it IS fact.
I stated it just as freely as you did.


Ed:
Had I posted in response to YOUR post the response would have been different since it would not have been the same post. Most people on this site do not post, demand, or expect court procedures to be followed. I understand you're an exception to that rule. When I respond to your posts I will generally adhere to your belief but I will not adhere to your interpretation of how posts should be worded if I don't respond to you. I prefer to discuss the issue as a whole, not make a mountain out of a molehill. I understand lawyers often prefer the opposite. Have fun with that. :peace
 
Last edited:
This will be the question:



Whether or not something will be considered as part of the answer is beside the point. It will be the question.

It will be part of the question. As they are already engaged, the question is whether we can make them have to have a method for paying for it or not. We've been through this haven't we? ;)
 
It will be part of the question. As they are already engaged, the question is whether we can make them have to have a method for paying for it or not. We've been through this haven't we? ;)

Yes, and saying they're "already engaged in commerce" is just as dumb now as it has been all along.
 
I stated it just as freely as you did.

Of course. But I didn't get smarmy about it. You did.


Ed:
Had I posted in response to YOUR post the response would have been different since it would not have been the same post. Most people on this site do not post, demand, or expect court procedures to be followed. I understand you're an exception to that rule. When I respond to your posts I will generally adhere to your belief but I will not adhere to your interpretation of how posts should be worded if I don't respond to you. I prefer to discuss the issue as a whole, not make a mountain out of a molehill. I understand lawyers often prefer the opposite. Have fun with that. :peace

No idea what this little whinefest has to do with.
 
Can the federal government charge a tax penalty if someone can afford health insurance but won't buy it?

We've already been through this; you decided to tuck tail and run rather than respond to it.

If they can, it's separately-delegated power. This is a commerce clause question, not a tax question.
 
Yes, and saying they're "already engaged in commerce" is just as dumb now as it has been all along.
I'm willing to go back to the good ol' days when you had to prove financial ability to pay (basically having insurance) before you were admitted to an ER. I lived under those terms for years. I personally think it's a bad idea long-term but if it takes a few dead idiots to make the point I'm OK with it because I know it won't last. The problem is, too many people are now alive that don't remember those days. Maybe all we need is a little reminder. A few rotting corpses should do it. :)
 
Last edited:
We've already been through this; you decided to tuck tail and run rather than respond to it.

If they can, it's separately-delegated power. This is a commerce clause question, not a tax question.

Um, I think I made the point and then let you exhaust yourself saying the same nonsensical things over and over. I think it could be argued successfully under the tax power. Apparently at least one former Solicitor General and several of the country's top conlaw scholars think so too. I suspect that it has been argued that way in at least one of the 136 amicus briefs that were filed. Since you're confident this isn't an issue I can only assume that you've read them all?
 
Um, I think I made the point and then let you exhaust yourself saying the same nonsensical things over and over.

No, you didn't. You made some huge deal out the Ryan plan, worked yourself into a hissy fit because I kept saying it was irrelevant, and when I finally said "fine" and took it on substantively, saying essentially what I just said, you whined something about being done trying to "talk sense" to me and never bothered to respond to what I said. :shrug:


I think it could be argued successfully under the tax power.

Yeah, well, too late for that. Said that before, too.

And it would be a complete fabrication as well.


Apparently at least one former Solicitor General and several of the country's top conlaw scholars think so too. I suspect that it has been argued that way in at least one of the 136 amicus briefs that were filed. Since you're confident this isn't an issue I can only assume that you've read them all?

The Justices did not seem interested in the question.
 
I'm willing to go back to the good ol' days when you had to prove financial ability to pay (basically having insurance) before you were admitted to an ER. I lived under those terms for years. I personally think it's a bad idea long-term but if it takes a few dead idiots to make the point I'm OK with it because I know it won't last. The problem is, too many people are now alive that don't remember those days. Maybe all we need is a little reminder. A few rotting corpses should do it. :)

Why you think this is a response to what I quoted, I do not know.
 
Yes, and saying they're "already engaged in commerce" is just as dumb now as it has been all along.

I'm sorry, but as the uninsured show up, get treatment, and run up a bill, I see no logical way to say they are not engaged.
 
Another member posted the opinion that the court should not do this, and you accused him of spewing political propaganda. So given your response I had to assume you were of the opposite opinion.



If the FedGov cannot constitutionally compel commerce to be entered into between private individuals/organizations, and cannot constitutionally levy a direct tax on individuals on the condition of engaging in a certain type of commerce, then the thousands of pages of other bull**** in the bill are irrelevant. You're basically saying "read harder and closer" in order to try to weave together some reaching rationalization for something ridiculously unconstitutional.


I defy you to show where I accused another poster of “spewing political propaganda in this subject thread. There was nothing political in my post, and secondly I’m not of an “opposite opinion”, I’m of an informed objective opinion: Scalia is a well known right-wing advocate and everybody in this country is very well aware of that.

As for the rest of your opinion; I cite the California statute that requires drivers to buy liability insurance. So, I'm not saying read harder and closer to weave at all; again, that's just your opinion. I'm saying read harder and clearer for a working knowkedge of teh bill in it's entirety so that intelligegnt and informed Supreme Court decisions can follow.
 
The entire law was not in question. Can you, along with him, understand that the crux of the Constitutional question is whether or not the government can force one private party to enter into a binding contract with another private party? If it can then government is unlimited in its reach, scope, and powers. We will live under a totalitarian regime with the power to rule us with an iron fist. If the government cannot then the whole law can be tossed on the ash heap of history.

If there were any justice every legislator who voted for this would be stripped of every possession and booted out of the country.

Look, I don't think that you can cite one area of the bill and say that that's the only constitutional sticking point can you. You haven't read teh argument against the bill and neither would I be so presumptuous to say such a thing.

Again, I will cite teh California law requiring drivers to (forcing driversd by government decree: which I think this will all come down to: states rights) buy auto insurance: it's the very same thing.
 
Again, I will cite teh California law requiring drivers to (forcing driversd by government decree: which I think this will all come down to: states rights) buy auto insurance: it's the very same thing.

No it is not the same thing.

1: The states can do things that the federal government cannot do. Hence the 10th Amendment.

2: No one HAS to get a drivers license. The only time that you HAVE to get one is if you drive on public roads. You do not HAVE to get a DL if you do not own a car. You do not HAVE to get a DL if you drive on your own private property. As such no auto insurance is needed.

I really wish that people would stop using the drivers license/auto insurance BS for a reason to keep the mandate and to allow the federal government in forcing people to buy from private companies. They are NOT the same. In no way shape or form is it the same.
 
Last edited:
No it is not the same thing.

1: The states can do things that the federal government cannot do. Hence the 10th Amendment.

2: No one HAS to get a drivers license. The only time that you HAVE to get one is if you drive on public roads. You do not HAVE to get a DL if you do not own a car. You do not HAVE to get a DL if you drive on your own private property. As such no auto insurance is needed.

I really wish that people would stop using the drivers license/auto insurance BS for a reason to keep the mandate and to allow the federal government in forcing people to buy from private companies. They are NOT the same. In no way shape or form is it the same.
At one time the only hospitals that would treat patients (even in ER) without proof of insurance were government funded hospitals. Then it was decided if a hospital received any government money, even reimbursement for services covered under Medicare and Medicaid, they would also be required to treat anyone asking for emergency services whether they had insurance or not. Reimbursement for those services is not guaranteed by the government. If this healthcare law is struck down should we also repeal the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone?
 
I'm sorry, but as the uninsured show up, get treatment, and run up a bill, I see no logical way to say they are not engaged.

Name them. C'mon, give me some actual people.

This law pertains to individuals. It doesn't pertain to some faceless, nameless group. You cannot say with certainty that anyone -- that is, anyone -- who is uninsured at this moment will show up for treatment without any ability to pay in the future. Or at all. And most of whom FOR whom it's a relatively safe bet will be exempted.

The idea that they're "already engaged" is dumb, dumb, dumb. It is highly insulting to anyone with a whit of intelligence, and it does violence to any sense of reason or logic. It's a mere bit of sophistry invented to prop up an unconstitutional provision.
 
At one time the only hospitals that would treat patients (even in ER) without proof of insurance were government funded hospitals. Then it was decided if a hospital received any government money, even reimbursement for services covered under Medicare and Medicaid, they would also be required to treat anyone asking for emergency services whether they had insurance or not. Reimbursement for those services is not guaranteed by the government. If this healthcare law is struck down should we also repeal the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone?

Ah yes, you're referring to the universal health care bill signed into law by Ronald Reagan.
 
No, you didn't. You made some huge deal out the Ryan plan, worked yourself into a hissy fit because I kept saying it was irrelevant, and when I finally said "fine" and took it on substantively, saying essentially what I just said, you whined something about being done trying to "talk sense" to me and never bothered to respond to what I said. :shrug:

Yes, in fact I did but you were apparently so distracted by the word "Ryan" that you were incapable of following the argument. And then, hysterically, you accuse me of running away from it when you repeatedly refused to acknowledge the argument. :lol:

The Justices did not seem interested in the question.

Is that what your tea leaves tell you?
 
Name them. C'mon, give me some actual people.

This law pertains to individuals. It doesn't pertain to some faceless, nameless group. You cannot say with certainty that anyone -- that is, anyone -- who is uninsured at this moment will show up for treatment without any ability to pay in the future. Or at all. And most of whom FOR whom it's a relatively safe bet will be exempted.

The idea that they're "already engaged" is dumb, dumb, dumb. It is highly insulting to anyone with a whit of intelligence, and it does violence to any sense of reason or logic. It's a mere bit of sophistry invented to prop up an unconstitutional provision.

Are you seriously trying to deny that it happens? You don't believe that uninsured people actually go to ERs and get treatment that they can't pay for? Seriously?

But even if you're prepared to deny the obvious to that extent, that is only half the equation. If you don't understand that taking healthy people out of the insurance pool affects the rates of everyone else in the pool then you are fundamentally ignorant about insurance. It's the very same reason that everyone is required to contribute to Medicare and Social Security.
 
Back
Top Bottom