quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I don't know a lot of people who can afford $1,500 per month for health insurance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EternalHoH



If everyone who is off the roles was there because of their expensive pre-existing condition, I would agree with you.  But that's not the case. There are plenty of people presently uninsured but relatively healthy

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Duhhhh...its called insurance for a reason. And Oblahblah care goes one step further...it requires the VERY HEALTHY to buy insurance, whether they want it or not. And its going down for that reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy




Duhhhh...its called insurance for a reason. And Oblahblah care goes one step further...it requires the VERY HEALTHY to buy insurance, whether they want it or not. And its going down for that reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EternalHoH

How about this, willbe,

What about passing a law as part of welfare reform that says if you decide to sire offspring, which is a totally elective choice on any adult's part, you would be required to carry a certain minimum amount of life insurance. Your present wealth standing would be irrelevant, so it would be a requirement applied across the board. Required so that should you die, your kids will have some guaranteed income and not end up on welfare rolls?  After all, the rest of the public didn't fuck your wife (we hope), so why should they have to pay for the kids?

We already have seatbelt laws, which are an obvious infringement upon personal rights. Unlike stop sign laws or headlights-on-when-raining laws, which physically protect others from your actions behind the wheel, seatbelt laws have no use physically protecting other innocent people from your actions, they only protect YOU from YOUR actions. But they were passed anyway, largely to hold down post-accident medical costs that were having to be borne by others in society.  The unbelted driver's decisions were raising premiums for everyone.

If infringement can happen there, it can happen anywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy




Duhhhh...its called insurance for a reason. And Oblahblah care goes one step further...it requires the VERY HEALTHY to buy insurance, whether they want it or not. And its going down for that reason.

From section 1312 (page 64/65) of the link I already provided:

SEC. 1312. CONSUMER CHOICE.
(a) CHOICE.—
(1) QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS.—A qualified individual may
enroll in any qualified health plan available to such individual.

Note: It says 'may' not must.

From that same section:

(A) CHOICE TO ENROLL OR NOT TO ENROLL.—Nothing
in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice of
a qualified individual to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified
health plan or to participate in an Exchange.


(B) PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED ENROLLMENT.—
Nothing in this title shall be construed to compel an individual
to enroll in a qualified health plan or to participate
in an Exchange.

From Section 1323: (page 74)

SEC. 1323. COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.
(a) VOLUNTARY NATURE.—

(2) NO REQUIREMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN.—Nothing
in this section shall be construed to require an individual
to participate in a community health insurance option, or to
impose any penalty for non-participation.


From Section 1333: (page 90)

(7) STATE LAW MANDATING BENEFIT COVERAGE BY A HEALTH
BENEFITS PLAN.—For the purposes of this subsection, a State
law mandating benefit coverage by a health plan is a law
that mandates health insurance coverage or the offer of health
insurance coverage for specific health services or specific diseases.
A law that mandates health insurance coverage or
reimbursement for services provided by certain classes of providers
of health care services, or a law that mandates that
certain classes of individuals must be covered as a group or
as dependents, is not a State law mandating benefit coverage
by a health benefits plan.

The individual mandate was in the bill which first passed the House. That bill was defeated in the Senate. The link I provided is the document that passed both Houses and was signed by the president.

Given all that, where (section # and or page number would be very helpful here) exactly is the mandate that "the very healthy" are required to buy insurance because I truly, after two pretty thorough readings missed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Federal vs state, just like the fallacious analogy between the individual mandate and auto insurance or Romneycare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



LMAO. So Federal courts are ruling on an individual mandate that doesnt exist? Keep looking, you'll find it. Hint: you stopped looking too soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EternalHoH

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Federal vs state, just like the fallacious analogy between the individual mandate and auto insurance or Romneycare.

True, but those differences doesn't matter in the context of precedent. That's what you were asked, but you dodged the question instead. 

I'm talking destination and you are arguing the type of car being driven. Your salient details dont matter.

Are you telling me that the states could not individually apply obamacare type laws if there was enough fiscal incentive in the enforcement area to do so? Seatbelt laws also represent a fiscal incentive to the state, too, which is why all the states pretty much passed the same types of laws individually. Either there was a financial incentive related to enforcement fines, or the feds held federal funds hostage to gain compliance. But its was accomplished on the 50-state level, and thats all that matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



LMAO. So Federal courts are ruling on an individual mandate that doesnt exist? Keep looking, you'll find it. Hint: you stopped looking too soon.

No, they're not. The Federal courts are ruling on whether or not the mandate for federal regulation of exchanges having to do with interstate commerce is constitutional. Since there is a clause in the bill that specifically says that exchanges are voluntary, I don't think it's going to get shot down when it gets to the Supreme Court. Where in the bill does it mandate that 'the very healthy' must purchase insurance? You said it.. so, I'm just asking you to give me the section number or even the page number where that 'mandate' is within the bill? I've read it twice.. if you don't know where it is or haven't read the bill, that's fine. I've already provided three separate sections proving that what you stated is untrue. If you can't back up what YOU said, that's on you to provide the cite. I've done my homework. Are you going to do yours? I've read the entire bill twice.. have you read it even once?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mouth4Mistress

Oh, and on a related note... at my workplace, the group health insurance provider sent us a letter a couple of weeks ago, detailing the changes that ObamaCare is forcing them to make - i.e. accept pre-existing conditions, kids are now covered up to 26, etc, etc., and an explanation of the cost increase... which of course ended with a note that our per-employee premiums are now $ 134/mo higher.

Thanks, Obama! We had no idea what to do with those $ 134 per person!

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



LMAO. So Federal courts are ruling on an individual mandate that doesnt exist? Keep looking, you'll find it. Hint: you stopped looking too soon.

No, they're not. The Federal courts are ruling on whether or not the mandate for federal regulation of exchanges having to do with interstate commerce is constitutional. Since there is a clause in the bill that specifically says that exchanges are voluntary, I don't think it's going to get shot down when it gets to the Supreme Court. Where in the bill does it mandate that 'the very healthy' must purchase insurance? You said it.. so, I'm just asking you to give me the section number or even the page number where that 'mandate' is within the bill? I've read it twice.. if you don't know where it is or haven't read the bill, that's fine. I've already provided three separate sections proving that what you stated is untrue. If you can't back up what YOU said, that's on you to provide the cite. I've done my homework. Are you going to do yours? I've read the entire bill twice.. have you read it even once?

You didnt do you homework very well, apparently. Section 1501, and anythning that refers to "individual responsibility", and IRC Section 5000A. And you are simply wrong. The courts are specifically ruling on the individual mandate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



LMAO. So Federal courts are ruling on an individual mandate that doesnt exist? Keep looking, you'll find it. Hint: you stopped looking too soon.

No, they're not. The Federal courts are ruling on whether or not the mandate for federal regulation of exchanges having to do with interstate commerce is constitutional. Since there is a clause in the bill that specifically says that exchanges are voluntary, I don't think it's going to get shot down when it gets to the Supreme Court. Where in the bill does it mandate that 'the very healthy' must purchase insurance? You said it.. so, I'm just asking you to give me the section number or even the page number where that 'mandate' is within the bill? I've read it twice.. if you don't know where it is or haven't read the bill, that's fine. I've already provided three separate sections proving that what you stated is untrue. If you can't back up what YOU said, that's on you to provide the cite. I've done my homework. Are you going to do yours? I've read the entire bill twice.. have you read it even once?

You didnt do you homework very well, apparently. Section 1501, and anythning that refers to "individual responsibility", and IRC Section 5000A. And you are simply wrong. The courts are specifically ruling on the individual mandate.

I read that section completely different, not as a mandate but as a congressional finding with "If A then B". If A (there is no requirement) then B (people will not buy insurance until they need it.) With the cross-section ammendments, strike out and revisions it just read very different when I took into account the sections I referenced earlier which had very clear language that purchase was not going to be required.

I still can't find any court cases that are not regarding federal regulation of interstate commerce but I'm not going to look any more. I have insurance anyway and if the Supreme Court strikes it down because of some mandate, I'm cool with that.. if they don't (and I still am not sure how about how the use of voluntary in several specific places is a mandate) then I guess the SCOTUS will have read it the same way I did and I'm cool with that as well.

Thanks for the section, willburdaddy. I had read it and the after ammendments to it .. I just read it differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I dont think the convoluted "monkey wrench" theory is needed. The express intent of Obamacare was to do exactly what the effect has been...termination of employer health coverage to drive people to the exchanges. Once the exchanges reach critical mass they become the only viable option remaning....ie single payer.