• 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!

To those against Obamacare -

Would you approve of the individual mandate if it were passed as an amendment?


  • Total voters
    36

fredmertz

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
358
Reaction score
115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?

My issue with most liberal-based legislation is that it continues to change the interpretation of the words in the constitution to allow for such legislation. The more we change the meaning of clauses, the less important those clauses become (and eventually, anything can be done under the clauses which render them useless). We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to abolish alcohol. Now look what we get away with!

I'm a constitutionalist. Which does not imply that I don't want to amend it or even that I don't want a bigger government necessarily. But if you don't have 2/3's approval in Congress and 75% of the states ratifying an increase of powers, than such an increase is not appropriate.

I'm personally on the fence about an individual mandate clause, depending on what it says exactly. But I'm absolutely against such a law without a constitutional amendment.
 
I don't particularly like the idea of the government being given the authorization or legal power to mandate specific items for purchase, nor them being given the authorization or legal power to penalize us via legal proceedings if we fail to comply. It opens the door to a lot of possibilies that benefit the authority and penalize the electorate and I don't like it. Changing the constitution to allow such power wouldn't make it any more logical.
 
I kinda fall on the fence on Obamacare in that I think it was better than doing nothing, but that it was far from ideal. Since I am not really "against" Obamacare however I won't vote in your poll and mess up your results. However....

I tend to oppose amending the constitution for minor things or passing political fads. I think health care reform can be done without amending the constitution and would oppose such an amendment.
 
I definintely don't like Obamacare. It wouldn't bother me a bit if it got completely thrown out so we could start over. I am all for healthcare assistance but I think it should be done through the existing Medicare and Medicaid system.
 
The biggest problem in healthcare is layers upon layers of bureaucracy on the federal level, that being said the worst thing possible would be to set in in stone by amendment. The best possible thing to do would be to strip out years of ridiculous overregulation and remand much of the coverage and health standards back to the states where they belong.
 
I kinda fall on the fence on Obamacare in that I think it was better than doing nothing, but that it was far from ideal.


Sometimes, doing nothing is better than a particular proposed action. I think that ObamaCare is a perfect example. It's one thing to do nothing whatsoever to solve a problem; it's something else entirely to do implement a “solution” that will only make the problem much worse than it otherwise would be. The Obama administration has been all about such “solutions”.
 
Do we need to consider an amendment for what we've been doing for decades? That is requiring hospitals and other institutions to accept people that can’t and won’t pay and provide them care for ‘emergency’ health issues.
 
Last edited:
Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?

My issue with most liberal-based legislation is that it continues to change the interpretation of the words in the constitution to allow for such legislation. The more we change the meaning of clauses, the less important those clauses become (and eventually, anything can be done under the clauses which render them useless). We once thought it necessary to amend the constitution to abolish alcohol. Now look what we get away with!

I'm a constitutionalist. Which does not imply that I don't want to amend it or even that I don't want a bigger government necessarily. But if you don't have 2/3's approval in Congress and 75% of the states ratifying an increase of powers, than such an increase is not appropriate.

I'm personally on the fence about an individual mandate clause, depending on what it says exactly. But I'm absolutely against such a law without a constitutional amendment.

I would have no problem with an attempt at an amendment, since I doubt that it would pass anytime soon. That, of course assuming that the present bill was repealed in the meantime.
 
Here's a better question: would you be in favor of Obamacare if there were no individual mandate at all? That's the issue that seems to garner the most visceral reaction.

But hey, I was in favor of a public option, so what do I know.
 
Sometimes, doing nothing is better than a particular proposed action. I think that ObamaCare is a perfect example. It's one thing to do nothing whatsoever to solve a problem; it's something else entirely to do implement a “solution” that will only make the problem much worse than it otherwise would be. The Obama administration has been all about such “solutions”.

There is a discussion there, but this is the wrong place to have it.
 
There is a discussion there, but this is the wrong place to have it.

I don't see why.

Clearly, my point is valid, about Obamacare”being a “solution that does nothing to solve the problem it was purported to address, and which, in fact, can only make it much, much worse. How is this not relevant to this thread?
 
Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?

No. Not only is forcing American citizens to buy health insurance from for profit companies fundamentally wrong, it is costly, a handout to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, it is impractical, and it provides the incentive for smaller businesses to drop their employees health plans all together. Almost a third of private-sector employers will drop their employee health insurance coverage when Obamacare comes online in 2014.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about 7 percent of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014. However, our early-2011 survey of more than 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, as well as other proprietary research, found that reform will provoke a much greater response. More information about the survey methodology is available on the McKinsey & Company Web site.
  • Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.
  • Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.
  • At least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.
  • Contrary to what many employers assume, more than 85 percent of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering ESI, although about 60 percent would expect increased compensation.
How US health care reform will affect employee benefits - McKinsey Quarterly - Health Care - Strategy & Analysis
 
No government should mandate the purchase of a good or service. Amending the constitutional would only make such legislation legal at the federal level. Romneycare in Massachusetts is perfectly constitutional, but it was still a bad idea. Legally permissible or not, individual mandates are bad government.

As for the idea that some "solutions" actually worsen the problem - which Obamacare certainly does - a big reason that such remedies are such bad medicine is because they often start with an inaccurate diagnosis. Obamacare starts from an incorrect premise: that the market doesn't work and more government intervention is needed. The opposite is, in fact, true; government intervention is the problem and more free market solutions are the solution.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I understand the question. If one is against it, what difference does it make if it's an amendment or merely a law? Being an amendment only means it's legally enforceable.
 
I kinda fall on the fence on Obamacare in that I think it was better than doing nothing, but that it was far from ideal. Since I am not really "against" Obamacare however I won't vote in your poll and mess up your results. However....

I tend to oppose amending the constitution for minor things or passing political fads. I think health care reform can be done without amending the constitution and would oppose such an amendment.
So I guess you think it's entirely appropriate for any congress and the president to unilaterally decide what are new Rights. Who needs a Bill or Rights when any legislature can make up whatever Rights they think will buy them votes. I can see it now.....everybody should be forced to buy Internet accesss or be fined so that all poor people can have free service.
 
Not sure I understand the question. If one is against it, what difference does it make if it's an amendment or merely a law? Being an amendment only means it's legally enforceable.
I understood the question to ask whether opponents of Obamacare oppose the law solely on constitutional grounds. Falling under the purview of an appropriate constitutional amendment would also give Obamacare the advantage of weathering legal challenges through the judicial system, something that is uncertain at this point given a Supreme Court which includes a primary Obamacare advocate.
 
Last edited:
I personally prefer a UHC system through taxation instead of the individual mandate system. If someone wants extra care, they can buy private health insurance as well and go to private hospitals. Like Redress, I did not vote because the title says, "To those against Obamacare".
 
Last edited:
I kinda fall on the fence on Obamacare in that I think it was better than doing nothing, but that it was far from ideal. Since I am not really "against" Obamacare however I won't vote in your poll and mess up your results. However....

I tend to oppose amending the constitution for minor things or passing political fads. I think health care reform can be done without amending the constitution and would oppose such an amendment.

If it ain't broke. Don't fix it. The health insurance industry needed to be adjusted, not fixed.
 
I personally prefer a UHC system through taxation instead of the individual mandate system. If someone wants extra care, they can buy private health insurance as well and go to private hospitals. Like Redress, I did not vote because the title says, "To those against Obamacare".

Yeah, that's part the reason they need us to bail them out.
 
If it ain't broke. Don't fix it. The health insurance industry needed to be adjusted, not fixed.

I think it was last year Don posted a thread about the request for reimbursement increases submitted by the AMA or whoever does it and the numbers where scarey. The system was broken.
 
We need to find a solution to the millions of people and growing that have no health insurance. We all pay for them any way.
No one gets turned away from a hospital and you can go day or night into emergency rooms in populated areas and its full of people with thier kids that are sick with no insurance. Were paying for it...to just say everyone has to buy their own is just well dumb...everyone knows thats not possible.
In my county in flordia every resident pays 50 a yr to the community hospital for indigent care. I dont know if business pays it, Im assuming they do.
Obama care is a mess and it wont work and even the writers know it wont work because they are giving waivers out like candy.
The gop and the dem have to sit down and work out a solution, but that wont happen until aliens land here and show them how to do it.
 
Assuming you are against the 'individual mandate' clause, would you support it if it were instead passed as an Amendment to the constitution?

No.Taking Obama care and making it a constitutional amendment does not make me want to support it.
 
We need to find a solution to the millions of people and growing that have no health insurance.
The true number of uninsured Americans is anywhere between 5 and 30 million, depending on how you want to calculate it. Millions of the uninsured can afford health insurance, but choose for one reason or another not to purchase it. The government's official figure, touted by the Obama administration last year, was just under 46 million, but failed to account, for example, for the (conservatively estimated) 11 million undocumented workers in this country. It also ignores the large number of uninsured who can afford health insurance or are the minor of someone who can, but chooses not to carry coverage for whatever reason.

We all pay for them any way. No one gets turned away from a hospital and you can go day or night into emergency rooms in populated areas and its full of people with thier kids that are sick with no insurance. Were paying for it...
If you see the problem as one of having to pay for the uninsured by way of increased costs and premiums due to offsetting the unpaid expenses of "free riders" then perhaps you should be advocating for reform the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), the federal law requiring hospitals to provide care to those who cannot pay.

...to just say everyone has to buy their own is just well dumb...everyone knows thats not possible.
No more than saying that every one is responsible for paying for his own gas so he can drive to and from work each day or paying for his own life insurance so his funeral costs aren't dumped on those he leaves behind. As with virtually everything else in life, if you can't afford something, you go without it. People faced with the choice of buying health insurance (or saving for unexpected medical expenses) or, let's say, eating out and seeing the most recent movies more often each month would be more apt to make the wiser choice if we forced them to actually live with the consequences of their choices. It's called accountability, something EMTALA does a lot to undermine.

In my county in flordia every resident pays 50 a yr to the community hospital for indigent care. I dont know if business pays it, Im assuming they do.
I suggest you find out how that's paid for because I guarantee you pay it. One way or another. If the government provides it, it's paid by tax dollars. If the government forces businesses to pay for it, that business has raised the price of its goods and services in order to cover it. Any tax on business is passed on to consumers. Businesses don't pay taxes, people do. If you think your community is getting away without paying the bill then you need to examine the money trail more closely, I think.

Obama care is a mess and it wont work and even the writers know it wont work because they are giving waivers out like candy.
It is a mess and it won't work if by "work" you mean "improve the quality and lower the cost of healthcare". The point of Obamacare isn't to develop a world-class health delivery system or reduce costs. Anyone who has read the bill's provisions can see that plainly. Obamacare is merely a wealth transfer agent and a giant step towards full government control of 1/7th of the U.S. economy. It is a vote-buying scheme, designed to render ever greater numbers of potential voters dependent on government for their livelihood in order to create a permanent electoral majority for the Santa Claus party. Democrats love to act magnanimous and hand out "free" goodies to "children" (both naughty and nice) and be loved in return, but the truth is that Santa Claus doesn't exist and when children unwrap their gifts and empty their stockings on Christmas Day, it's the adults in the room that paid for everything.

The gop and the dem have to sit down and work out a solution, but that wont happen until aliens land here and show them how to do it.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and rammed Obamacare down Americans throats, in case you were sleeping for most of 2009-2010. Had they taken their time, pitched the bill and worked across the aisle for reasonable compromise, they still could have delivered a transformative bill that would have been palatable to moderate Republicans and independent voters. They shot themselves in the foot with their "take no prisoners" approach, however, and created the tidal wave of public backlash. The reason getting Democrats and Republicans to "work out a solution" is because Democrats are aliens. They have come to earth, with no appreciation of its heritage or what makes it a good place to live except its resources, they want to plunder those resources and give them to another planet, they see themselves as our betters, they seek to be our masters. Republicans are the ones telling E.T. to go home and keep his hands off or, as Randy Quaid memorable told the aliens in Independence Day, "up yours!" When one group says "gimme!" and the other says "hands off!" there isn't much room for compromise. Republicans and Democrats see the problem itself very differently. Democrats see a lack of government intervention as a problem. Republicans see government intervention as the problem. Where's the common ground in that? This is why we have elections, so the voters can decide which side they agree with more.
 
The biggest problem in healthcare is layers upon layers of bureaucracy on the federal level, that being said the worst thing possible would be to set in in stone by amendment. The best possible thing to do would be to strip out years of ridiculous overregulation and remand much of the coverage and health standards back to the states where they belong.

I would actually do the opposite. The healthcare industry is woefully underregulated... or at least underregulated in the wrong areas. I would take away most of the coverage and standards from the states and give it to the federal government so that there starts to be some uniformity, consistency, and ease of transferring coverage.
 
I still do not understand the how and why our Constitution can be involved with health care. When the Constitution was written, there simply was no such thing as health care; hospitals were in their infancy; life was totally different way back then....
I favor a health care plan that benefits the masses and that solves problems.....the emergency room for one....
Health care should be socialized
We need something akin to that of the advanced European nations....how many years are they more advanced than us ????
Its ludicrous to tie health care into a document written in the "dark ages"...
 
Back
Top Bottom