• 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!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
The Marx I know the most about is Groucho.

The idea that we chose between what you call 'liberty' and what you call 'equality of outcome' is a false framing of the issue.

People are not equal and no amount of government can ever change that. What government can do is to use its powers to help build a society which is sustainable and a place where people want to live and work as citizens with equal rights.
Click to expand...

Ah...good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A far better approach is to do no harm. That requires restraint.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Sure, there can be tension between any two policy goals. You balance and try to optimize them together.
Click to expand...

The left isn't capable of balance. It believes it has a higher moral vision that entitles it to ignore the "ends/means test." Because the ends justify the means the left is capable of anything, except restraint.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Are you under the impression that you had the right to buy or not buy every single thing you want to buy before the SC decision? What about the decision changed that in any real way?
Click to expand...

One: I never said that I had a right to buy whatever I wanted. However we did have a right to choose to NOT buy something before this decision. Big difference. Of course I'm quite sure you knew that since you threw in the words "you want to buy" in there. A typical dishonest tactic that you like to employ.

haymarket said:
Many things come with a price. Now you know what the price is for not being responsible for your own insurance so the rest of society does not have to buy for you what you would not buy for yourself.
Click to expand...

God what a stupid statement. The whole point of requireing the mandate was to spread the cost of peoples medical bills among the people. IE YOU'RE STILL PAYING FOR EVERYONE ELSE'S MEDICAL! Something which was a talking point of people that were for this mandate. That people would no longer have to pay for other peoples medical bills. Guess what...still going to happen. And this isn't even considering the fact that even more people will be eligible for medicaid with this POS legislation than before.

Also you are ignoring the fact that there is only one day out of the entire year in which people actually have to have insurance. Thats tax day. The rest of the year they don't have to have it. All they have to do is show they have insurance. Hell, they don't even HAVE to have insurance to show a piece of paper which says you have insurance but is in actuality just a piece of paper printed off a computer like so many insurance companies like to let ya do....and is valid proof of such....even among cops.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Albert Di Salvo said:
Ah...good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A far better approach is to do no harm. That requires restraint.
Click to expand...

You left off the word FIRST - as in - To first do no harm. Doing no harm is only the first part of the rule. Much follows.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kal'Stang said:
One: I never said that I had a right to buy whatever I wanted. However we did have a right to choose to NOT buy something before this decision. Big difference. Of course I'm quite sure you knew that since you threw in the words "you want to buy" in there. A typical dishonest tactic that you like to employ.
Click to expand...

Great. So we agree there is no right to buy or not to buy that simply is a reality of life.

Citizens who drive a motor vehicle - and that would be the vast majority of Americans are forced to purchase insurance for that vehicle. This is nothing radical or revolutionary. It is well established.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kal'Stang said:
Also you are ignoring the fact that there is only one day out of the entire year in which people actually have to have insurance. Thats tax day. The rest of the year they don't have to have it. All they have to do is show they have insurance. Hell, they don't even HAVE to have insurance to show a piece of paper which says you have insurance but is in actuality just a piece of paper printed off a computer like so many insurance companies like to let ya do....and is valid proof of such....even among cops.
Click to expand...

If that happens, we can work so that is dealt with.

And you still DO NOT HAVE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
You left off the word FIRST - as in - To first do no harm. Doing no harm is only the first part of the rule. Much follows.
Click to expand...

You are correct. First do no harm is the Hippocratic way of saying there is a fiduciary duty to the patient, and that duty begins with doing no harm. I don't believe the federal govt. recognizes any fiduciary duty. In any event, the federal govt. is picking winners and losers on health care. That is hardly the exercise of a fiduciary duty.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Citizens who drive a motor vehicle - and that would be the vast majority of Americans are forced to purchase insurance for that vehicle. This is nothing radical or revolutionary. It is well established.
Click to expand...

WRONG. That auto insurance is voluntary, only needed for the PRIVILEGE of driving a specific vehicle, and covers ONLY liability to OTHERS. There is NO penalty for NOT having it, unless you CHOOSE to drive an uninsured vehicle. I can in 2014 be fined (Obama still says that it is NOT a tax, LOL) for simply paying cash for my medical care or not using any medical care at all. That is INSANE.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

how much health insurance does ACA require?

can it just be hospitalization/emergency insurance?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
People are not equal and no amount of government can ever change that. What government can do is to use its powers to help build a society which is sustainable and a place where people want to live and work as citizens with equal rights.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

Sustainable?!?! God that is hilarious.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Great. So we agree there is no right to buy or not to buy that simply is a reality of life.
Click to expand...

Only because THIS SCOTUS took away that right.

haymarket said:
Citizens who drive a motor vehicle - and that would be the vast majority of Americans are forced to purchase insurance for that vehicle. This is nothing radical or revolutionary. It is well established.
Click to expand...

Stupid analogy considering NO ONE HAS TO BUY A CAR! Duh. You also do not have to buy insurance for a car if you stay off of public roads with it. See...the choice to "not buy" was still there. This POS legislation leaves NO choice whatsoever.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Albert Di Salvo said:
The left isn't capable of balance. It believes it has a higher moral vision that entitles it to ignore the "ends/means test." Because the ends justify the means the left is capable of anything, except restraint.
Click to expand...

Of course ends can justify means. That's one of the most insidious slogans there is. People say that the Nazis mistake was that they let their "ends" of a right wing utopia justify the "means" of exterminating the Jews and trying to conquer the world. That was bad, so it must be that it is always bad to decide what to do based on the ends.

It's a really twisted piece of logic because it is based on the idea that the end of a world without Jews or Gay people ruled by a fascist dictatorship were a good goal, but it was just bad because they resorted to unseemly means to get there... The problem was the ends as much as the means. The end was evil, so approaching that end meant employing evil means.

The ends are the only thing any rational decision is ever based on. The means of me typing these words are justified by the ends of this post going up on the board. The means of driving to work is justified by the ends of arriving at work. Every rational, pragmatic, analysis of anything is based on the end results.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Thunder said:
how much health insurance does ACA require?

can it just be hospitalization/emergency insurance?
Click to expand...

NO. I do not know the EXACT minimum mandatory benefits (some are not yet even written, or are "phased in"), but it must provide for "free" preventive care and many off the wall things, like birth control pills and other such nonsense, dreamed up by a politically correct panel of DC morons. Yes even single males must now have birth control pill coverage in Obama land, we can not "discriminate" based on gender. Not even surcharges for the obese are permitted any more, so we ALL must pay the (35%?) overweight rates now. USA, USA, USA...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

teamosil said:
Of course ends can justify means. That's one of the most insidious slogans there is. People say that the Nazis mistake was that they let their "ends" of a right wing utopia justify the "means" of exterminating the Jews and trying to conquer the world. That was bad, so it must be that it is always bad to decide what to do based on the ends.

It's a really twisted piece of logic because it is based on the idea that the end of a world without Jews or Gay people ruled by a fascist dictatorship were a good goal, but it was just bad because they resorted to unseemly means to get there... The problem was the ends as much as the means. The end was evil, so approaching that end meant employing evil means.

The ends are the only thing any rational decision is ever based on. The means of me typing these words are justified by the ends of this post going up on the board. The means of driving to work is justified by the ends of arriving at work. Every rational, pragmatic, analysis of anything is based on the end results.
Click to expand...

What unites Americans and makes them a single community?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
If that happens, we can work so that is dealt with.

And you still DO NOT HAVE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.
Click to expand...

What do you consider "do not have to" to mean? We don't have to pay IRS either but they tend to demand that we do. Are you saying that, after 2014, I may LIE on my IRS forms, or make a partial payment? Explain how you see a MANDATE as an option. Crickets...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
What do you consider "do not have to" to mean? We don't have to pay IRS either but they tend to demand that we do. Are you saying that, after 2014, I may LIE on my IRS forms, or make a partial payment? Explain how you see a MANDATE as an option. Crickets...
Click to expand...

You can opt to pay the irresponsibility tax instead.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
When one of the most conservative justices in the last seventy years sides with the four more liberal judges, it says a whole lot more than that.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't read any of the opinion. In not so many words, he called it crap legislation. It just happened to be legal crap in his opinion.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

haymarket said:
Citizens who drive a motor vehicle - and that would be the vast majority of Americans are forced to purchase insurance for that vehicle.
Click to expand...

No, that's why part of my premium goes to pay for Uninsured Motorists in case I am involved in an accident with a freeloader.

That's according to an industry group that estimates 13.8% of motorists are uninsured, a number that has climbed during the economic downturn as many financially-pressed Americans allowed their insurance to lapse.

Insured drivers pay a hefty price for fellow motorists who have no policies — $10.8 billion in 2007, according to the most recent data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

"Most of the people that do have insurance have coverage that includes uninsured motorist coverage … to protect them (if) they're injured in an accident caused by another motorist who does not have insurance," Corum says.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-11/uninsured-drivers/50363390/1
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kandahar said:
You can opt to pay the irresponsibility tax instead.
Click to expand...

From what I've been reading, you can also opt not to do so, with the risk of foregoing a your tax refund.

(CNNMoney)
What happens if I don't pay the penalty? The IRS will send you a letter stating that you owe the government money.

"These are not the kinds of things ... that we send agents out about. These are things where you get a letter from us," Shulman said. Failure to pay the penalty will not be treated as a crime.

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure," according to the law.

The law also prohibits the government from putting liens or levies on your property to collect the penalty. But based on Shulman's comments, it seems the government will be able to withhold your future refunds.
Click to expand...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Hello everyone! Brief lurker, first time poster.

Question to all who care to answer: The SCOTUS says this is constitutional as a tax, correct? Obama, along with his administration, insists it is not a tax, correct? So, what now?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Feebie said:
Hello everyone! Brief lurker, first time poster.

Question to all who care to answer: The SCOTUS says this is constitutional as a tax, correct? Obama, along with his administration, insists it is not a tax, correct? So, what now?
Click to expand...

We get taxed instead of penalized. :mrgreen:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183]

Feebie said:
Hello everyone! Brief lurker, first time poster.

Question to all who care to answer: The SCOTUS says this is constitutional as a tax, correct? Obama, along with his administration, insists it is not a tax, correct? So, what now?
Click to expand...

Obama gets to raise his palms in the air and say "hey, they said it, not me!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom