• 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!

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Kandahar said:
Except this romanticized view of the private sector doesn't actually exist in health care spending. Typically you do NOT have the freedom to move from one private health care provider to another.
Click to expand...
See, I don't think that's the case. If a person or household is employed - they do have the freedom to move from one private health care provider to another if they so chose. That is not typical because many employers offer better rates due to a large pool of insured members which can negotiate better premiums through that employer. However, there is nothing preventing people from moving from one provider to another within their state. The inter-state purchase is another topic.

Kandahar said:
If you get insurance through your employer, you take whatever policy your employer tells you to take. Sure, you could switch employers, but that's enough of a hassle that it highly discourages mobility.
Click to expand...
There you go, it's not the cost necessarily, it's the "hassle" meaning people are too lazy to do it on their own?

Kandahar said:
Furthermore, many people will not switch jobs - even if they're stuck at a job they hate or suck at - because they don't want to be without health insurance for even a day.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "many"? The scenario I think of is the typical Starbucks employee who's working there only for the benifits - is that what you mean?

Kandahar said:
But maybe you have more mobility if you don't get insurance through your employer, and just buy an individual plan, right? Wrong. Better hope you don't get sick, or you'll be wedded to that policy for the rest of your life. Any other individual plan will tell you to take a hike due to your preexisting condition, or just charge you so much that it's essentially a roundabout way of telling you to take a hike.
Click to expand...
The pre-existing condition clause in the Obamacare bill is a good one and something like it should be included in whatever takes the place of that bill. However, don't mistake a healthcare provider that now cannot deny you coverage for a preexisting condition means they cannot charge you 2 arms a leg and an eye for coverage. I don't know that 2,000 page monstrosity that well, but I don't think there was a ceiling on premium costs for those with preexisting conditions.

Kandahar said:
This "freedom to move within the private sector" is a myth. Unless you're 25 and healthy, you have at most a few options when it comes to buying health insurance.
Click to expand...
I don't think market competition is a myth at all. I think you just want it to be a myth as it applies to this law for political reasons.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

independent_thinker2002 said:
About as much as an accountant at the home office of an insurance company. Only they won't deny coverage in the name of record profits.
Click to expand...

Aw, the demonization of profits, where do those profits go? Guess your paycheck just shows up from the pay fairy. The govt. mandate of someone to purchase insurance is unconstitutional.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Kandahar;1059258035]If I'm not mistaken, you're only eligible for COBRA if you are laid off...and even then your premiums increase drastically. I'm talking about people voluntarily switching jobs, in the "freedom to move within the private sector" sense that you described above. It's rare for someone to switch jobs due to their health care benefits.
Click to expand...

With personal choices comes responsibility and consequences, something missing in the liberal world. If someone chooses to leave their job for another that doesn't offer health insurance why is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for that choice?


So if someone gets leukemia and can therefore never switch health care plans for the rest of their life due to their preexisting condition, that's a "poor personal choice"? On whose part?
Click to expand...

You are going to find all kinds of exceptions to the rule. I have been in the same healthcare system for decades. I have never been dropped due to my wife having cancer. Life is about choice and consequences for making that choice. I employed 1200 employees when I worked, offered healthcare for all including part time employees. I paid 80% of the cost of that insurance and since a large majority were members of the invincible class, 50% signed up, the other 600 were classified as uninsured. Whose responsibility is it to pay for those 600 health insurance choice?


I don't think the business owes me health insurance. I'd be thrilled if health benefits were taxed as regular income, to spur employers to get out of the business of providing their employees with health insurance altogether.
Click to expand...


Good, neither do I but glad I had that option and took it.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

independent_thinker2002 said:
In addition to your points, if you switch employers and health insurance, you may run into pre-existin condition exclusions. Also, the private sector tells you which doctors you can go to.
Click to expand...

Not true. If you have health insurance and change employers, you are automatically eligible for coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusion.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

independent_thinker2002 said:
About as much as an accountant at the home office of an insurance company. Only they won't deny coverage in the name of record profits.
Click to expand...

Medicare is actually the number one denier of claims. Meaning they deny more claims then any other insurance company. You really don't think they have a budget and have to watch their expenses also?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Gill said:
Not true. If you have health insurance and change employers, you are automatically eligible for coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusion.
Click to expand...

True. Assuming enough creditable insurance, which I assume you wuld have if you were outside of the pre-ex period on the prior policy.
 
Conservative said:
January 31, 2010

Breaking News: Florida Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

Story: Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutionalby Florida U.S. Judge - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

Just another stop on the way to the Supreme court where they will try to find the answer in the constitution, but there isn't anything there, nothing, ziltch, so they'll make up their own rules as usual. And since most are Reps, they will make a ruling that's best for the Rep agenda, the same way they did in 2000.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Just another stop on the way to the Supreme court where they will try to find the answer in the constitution, but there isn't anything there, nothing, ziltch, so they'll make up their own rules as usual. And since most are Reps, they will make a ruling that's best for the Rep agenda, the same way they did in 2000.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

don't know much about the Constitution, I see, amazing how you seem to support it when it supports your point of view but not when it is interpreted differently. Let me know where you want me to send the check to fund your healthcare premiums.
 
ricksfolly said:
Just another stop on the way to the Supreme court where they will try to find the answer in the constitution, but there isn't anything there, nothing, ziltch, so they'll make up their own rules as usual. And since most are Reps, they will make a ruling that's best for the Rep agenda, the same way they did in 2000.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Did the two court cases which found the healthcare act Constitutional, simply make the ruling that's best for the Dem agenda too?
 
ricksfolly said:
Just another stop on the way to the Supreme court where they will try to find the answer in the constitution, but there isn't anything there, nothing, ziltch, so they'll make up their own rules as usual. And since most are Reps, they will make a ruling that's best for the Rep agenda, the same way they did in 2000.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Is that why Breyer and Souter voted with the majority in 2000 ??
 
hazlnut said:
Um... if it's unconstitutional for the Fed, it's unconstitutional for the states. State law can not violate the U.S. Constitution.


Federal services. And I said perhaps. A broader reading of the judges decision, and blamo... no IRS.



No one's forcing you to buy, just pay the relatively small fee to cover your care should you turn up in the ER.

But if you don't pay income tax, you go to jail. That feels like force.
Click to expand...


Okay I might even buy what you say, but then you have to accept, that no one is forcing you to drive, you can walk or bike to wherever you want to go, take a bus, or any other mean of getting to where you want to go. Driving is a privileged not a right.

Federal services? That is not a product. It is just what you stated, a service provided by your tax dollars.

No one is forcing you to buy? I find that almost laughable and even more so with your last statement, because if you had followed any coverage on this, you would know, that collection of such fines, if you don't buy insurance, is to be collected by that same IRS that you say if you don't pay you will go to jail. So where is your choice again ??
 
Last edited:
The Barbarian said:
Okay I might even buy what you say, but then you have to accept, that no one is forcing you to drive, you can walk or bike to wherever you want to go, take a bus, or any other mean of getting to where you want to go. Driving is a privileged not a right.

Federal services? That is not a product. It is just what you stated, a service provided by your tax dollars.

No one is forcing you to buy? I find that almost laughable and even more so with your last statement, because if you had followed any coverage on this, you would know, that collection of such fines, if you don't buy insurance, is to be collected by that same IRS that you say if you don't pay you will go to jail. So where is your choice again ??
Click to expand...

Don't fall for that liberal argument. The Founders gave the states a lot more lattitude than the Federal Govt. and that is where most of the power resided, not a strong central govt. The Constitution specific says that the states have the authority over anything not specifically stated in the Constitution and that includes implementing healthcare if the states wanted to do that. Healthcare is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus the mandate is unconstitutional but the states can do it if the people in the states approve it.
 
Conservative said:
Don't fall for that liberal argument. The Founders gave the states a lot more lattitude than the Federal Govt. and that is where most of the power resided, not a strong central govt. The Constitution specific says that the states have the authority over anything not specifically stated in the Constitution and that includes implementing healthcare if the states wanted to do that. Healthcare is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus the mandate is unconstitutional but the states can do it if the people in the states approve it.
Click to expand...

-chuckles- oh, I know.... just decided to take a different tact, to avoid the same argument over and over again.... no one is saying that by any law you have to drive a car, so if you don't you don't have to have auto insurance.... that is kinda hard to dispute .. .
 
Conservative said:
Don't fall for that liberal argument. The Founders gave the states a lot more lattitude than the Federal Govt. and that is where most of the power resided, not a strong central govt. The Constitution specific says that the states have the authority over anything not specifically stated in the Constitution and that includes implementing healthcare if the states wanted to do that. Healthcare is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus the mandate is unconstitutional but the states can do it if the people in the states approve it.
Click to expand...

Funny that it is the Republican idea that forces people to buy insurance is the biggest problem with the law. We should have gone the public option route...or better yet, single payer, rather than try to adopt these poor GOP ideas to gain their support. THAT was the biggest flaw with the healthcare law and the reason why many on the left are not happy with the law as well.
 
disneydude said:
Funny that it is the Republican idea that forces people to buy insurance is the biggest problem with the law. We should have gone the public option route...or better yet, single payer, rather than try to adopt these poor GOP ideas to gain their support. THAT was the biggest flaw with the healthcare law and the reason why many on the left are not happy with the law as well.
Click to expand...

You have such great belief that the Federal Govt. can lower costs and increase quality and quantity. Upon what do you base that belief? Interesting that single payer is being dismantled in Europe and such failure in reducing costs in MA. Interesting that you and the rest of the Obama supporters ignore that reality.
 
disneydude said:
Funny that it is the Republican idea that forces people to buy insurance is the biggest problem with the law. We should have gone the public option route...or better yet, single payer, rather than try to adopt these poor GOP ideas to gain their support. THAT was the biggest flaw with the healthcare law and the reason why many on the left are not happy with the law as well.
Click to expand...

There is one thing wrong with your post, the public option and the single payer route was lost because enough support could not be found among democrat to pass the bill with either of them in it.

As for the Republican idea of forcing people to buy insurance, this could be viewed in two ways, one it was just a bad idea, or two, Republicans knew that in one form or another this monstrosity of a bill was going to get passed, and if there was a part of it that could be constitutionally challenged … well … it could well lead to the demise of most or all of the bill ….. . naaa couldn't be that … cause everyone knows those Republicans aren't smart enough to pull something like that.
 
Gill said:
Is that why Breyer and Souter voted with the majority in 2000 ??
Click to expand...

Overextending it to a wide degree. They did not vote with the majority on the main issue.
All souter and breyer said was that letting 4 counties recount and not the others was a violation of the equal protection clause.
"Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards."
They didn't say a recount was unconstitutional. They said if you're going to recount it, do it for all counties.
 
hazlnut said:
So, if people don't have to buy health care, but insurance companies can't deny coverage, how's that going to work?

And if young adults show up to the ER with type 2 diabetes, do we just put them on hospice care?

From now on, Medicare and Medicaid only covers hospice.
Click to expand...
It seems to me, you pro "reformers" are arguing that it's simply ok to enforce a law that is unconstitutional in order to accomplish what you think needs to be accomplished. Whether the mandate is the lynch pin that makes Obamacare work or not is irrelevant, the constitutionality of the mandate is all that really matters.
 
The Barbarian said:
There is one thing wrong with your post, the public option and the single payer route was lost because enough support could not be found among democrat to pass the bill with either of them in it.

As for the Republican idea of forcing people to buy insurance, this could be viewed in two ways, one it was just a bad idea, or two, Republicans knew that in one form or another this monstrosity of a bill was going to get passed, and if there was a part of it that could be constitutionally challenged … well … it could well lead to the demise of most or all of the bill ….. . naaa couldn't be that … cause everyone knows those Republicans aren't smart enough to pull something like that.
Click to expand...

Republicans play the politics game much better than democrats, partly because its not in their best interest to compromise, while it is for democrats.
They don't, however, play it THAT well. Your second assertation is very, very doubtful and hardly provable.

What I find ironic is that when the republicans won the house this fall, they pass a repeal of the health care bill because they have "the will of the american people" behind them. However, when the democratic house passed a public option, no, that wasn't with the will of the american people who voted them in. Yet again, another example of how Republicans play the game better.

Our country would look a whole lot different if we didn't have a branch of congress the founders established for the very precise purpose of not allowing anything to get done.
 
iamitter said:
Republicans play the politics game much better than democrats, partly because its not in their best interest to compromise, while it is for democrats.
They don't, however, play it THAT well. Your second assertation is very, very doubtful and hardly provable.

What I find ironic is that when the republicans won the house this fall, they pass a repeal of the health care bill because they have "the will of the american people" behind them. However, when the democratic house passed a public option, no, that wasn't with the will of the american people who voted them in. Yet again, another example of how Republicans play the game better.

Our country would look a whole lot different if we didn't have a branch of congress the founders established for the very precise purpose of not allowing anything to get done.
Click to expand...

If we had a govt. that the founders established it wouldn't be the 3.8 trillion dollar massive bureaucracy we have now.

Name for me one country in the world where the single payer system has reduced costs, improved quality and access? Is the single payer system working in MA?
 
iamitter said:
Republicans play the politics game much better than democrats, partly because its not in their best interest to compromise, while it is for democrats.
They don't, however, play it THAT well. Your second assertation is very, very doubtful and hardly provable.

What I find ironic is that when the republicans won the house this fall, they pass a repeal of the health care bill because they have "the will of the american people" behind them. However, when the democratic house passed a public option, no, that wasn't with the will of the american people who voted them in. Yet again, another example of how Republicans play the game better.

Our country would look a whole lot different if we didn't have a branch of congress the founders established for the very precise purpose of not allowing anything to get done.
Click to expand...

-chuckles- oh I know it's can't be proven.... but you will have to admit that yes they did indeed have that part put in, and as soon as the bill was passed, it was the first thing they zeroed in on. Now everything else aside, it would have been a brilliant move on their part if that was their thinking all along .

As to where our country would be and what it would look like with out that branch … that now allows nothing to be done, that is a scary thought. It seem that only in our recent history, have the sides moved so far to the left and right, there use to be much more compromise within each party.

I'm one that happens to believe that the worst government we have is when the same party controls all three branches of the government, the checks and balances are gone, either party just pushes their own agenda and no move to the center is required. I still feel that the majority of people are still either just left or right of center in this country.

I honestly have no idea why the divide seems to be growing wider, I understand some of it, with difficult times people tend to want less compromise, feeling their ideas are what is needed to fix things, but this has been going on through even some pretty good times .. Perhaps to much single party rule ? I'm just not real sure what the cause is.
 
iamitter said:
Overextending it to a wide degree. They did not vote with the majority on the main issue.
All souter and breyer said was that letting 4 counties recount and not the others was a violation of the equal protection clause.
"Justices Breyer and Souter wanted to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to permit that court to establish uniform standards of what constituted a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards."
They didn't say a recount was unconstitutional. They said if you're going to recount it, do it for all counties.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I posted.
 
Conservative said:
If we had a govt. that the founders established it wouldn't be the 3.8 trillion dollar massive bureaucracy we have now.

Name for me one country in the world where the single payer system has reduced costs, improved quality and access? Is the single payer system working in MA?
Click to expand...

I don't know if that was directed towards me or everyone, but I didn't advocate for one.
 
Conservative said:
don't know much about the Constitution, I see, amazing how you seem to support it when it supports your point of view but not when it is interpreted differently. Let me know where you want me to send the check to fund your healthcare premiums.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of the HCRA was to get some kind of bill passed and they could make changes later. So this legal thing the Reps are trying to push through is just political window dressing for the ones on the fence.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
The whole idea of the HCRA was to get some kind of bill passed and they could make changes later. So this legal thing the Reps are trying to push through is just political window dressing for the ones on the fence.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

That is pure spin, the whole purpose of getting the act passed was to implement the Obama leftwing agenda and to take the first step towards destroying the healthcare industry and implement a European style model here. Amazing that Europe is going the other way now and you refuse to even look at what is happening in MA. I wonder what it is about liberalism that makes grown thinking individuals brainwashed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom