RE: Constitutionality of ACA

RE: Constitutionality of ACA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 5:06:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: and if its not bad enough that you cannot afford to pay for health insurance since it is now a tax demanded by the supreme sovereign "gubafia" you will now lose your house and be put out on the street as soon as they kill or cure you which ever comes first. Unlike now, where you can get stuck with tens of thousands in hospital bills you cannot afford to pay, "lose your house and be put out on the street as soon as they kill or cure you which ever comes first" Health care is not a Right. Life is tough. Get insurance or it will get tougher. If you cannot buy insurance then you cannot and you will not get the care you need to perhaps keep living. There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. This is life.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 5:11:47 PM)
From the article: quote: They offer only one reason: they say that if Congress can make people buy insurance then it can make them buy anything it wishes. That's huge. A line Too Big to Cross. It is a line they will not let anyone cross no mater how many words one writes in argument for we do recognize it will forever change the relationship between Government and the private Citizen and this relationship is defined as the Government answers to the people and crossing this line changes that (by) making the people answer to Government in the form of the Mandate penalty if one does not buy insurance. Simple. Clean. Needs no long argument. It just "is". It's America.

dcnovice -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 5:14:09 PM)
quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Doesn't just about every other First World country seem to manage universal coverage?

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 5:23:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Health care is not a Right. Life is tough. Get insurance or it will get tougher. If you cannot buy insurance then you cannot and you will not get the care you need to perhaps keep living. There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. This is life. So you oppose Reagan's law requiring hospitals to treat anyone who shows up at their door? AKA, you oppose the laws as they were before Obamacare?

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 5:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas From the article: quote: They offer only one reason: they say that if Congress can make people buy insurance then it can make them buy anything it wishes. That's huge. A line Too Big to Cross. It is a line they will not let anyone cross no mater how many words one writes in argument for we do recognize it will forever change the relationship between Government and the private Citizen and this relationship is defined as the Government answers to the people and crossing this line changes that (by) making the people answer to Government in the form of the Mandate penalty if one does not buy insurance. Simple. Clean. Needs no long argument. It just "is". It's America. I think part of the reason the Conservatives were so weird in their arguments against Obamacare is that it either is constitutional, or a lot of other things are not. Go ahead and try to find any argument against Obamacare that doesn't apply equally to Medicare. A supreme court ruling that threatened Medicare (and I'd be tempted to file suit to get out of paying that tax just for the political points) would end the Republican party...

tazzygirl -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 5:53:41 PM)
quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Amended because it should have read as follows.... There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance and still line the pockets of the CEOs and stockholders.

Musicmystery -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 7:02:11 PM)
quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year.

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 9:20:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year. Or to put it another way, for less than what the US government spends on Medicare and the VA, it could have a health care system equal to Canada's, with money left over. We pay $7000 per body per year in the US, and Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, etc. pay about $3000 per body per year. $3000 times 300 million people=900 billion. Medicare costs in 2011=835 billion. VA costs in 2009 (only year I could find without real work)=87 billion.

tazzygirl -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/4/2012 9:54:17 PM)
The Department’s resource request for 2013 is $140.3 billion. This includes almost $64 billion in discretionary resources and nearly $76.4 billion in mandatory funding. Our discretionary budget request represents an increase of $2.7 billion, or nearly 4.5 percent, over the 2012 enacted level. http://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp Net Program Cost For VA medical... 2011 - 52,521 (millions) 2010 - 48,084 http://www.va.gov/budget/docs/report/PartIII/2011-VAPAR_Part_III.pdf

farglebargle -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 4:41:36 AM)
Look, it's obvious from the numbers that there's no fiscal reason we couldn't. Now it's just a matter of priorities. Do we spend money buying healthcare for soldiers in Afghanistan, or kids in Baltimore?

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 6:52:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Look, it's obvious from the numbers that there's no fiscal reason we couldn't. Now it's just a matter of priorities. Do we spend money buying healthcare for soldiers in Afghanistan, or kids in Baltimore? I don't think it is either/or... Do we spend money buying healthcare for soldiers in Afghanistan, while allowing corporations to drive up costs and using the ER for primary care for a huge portion of our population, or do we use the same money to cover everyone, thereby driving down costs and actually saving the government money?

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:01:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Doesn't just about every other First World country seem to manage universal coverage? You mean like Greece and France and Spain? You forgot to mention they are bankrupt from this activity and going into "austerity" programs followed by riots in the streets and so we are trying to avoid that although Obama wants very hard to transform us into one of those First World bankrupt countries. Not us. The Founding Fathers had a control in place. The Supreme Court. Fortunately for you and me the Republican Party took it to the Court and it is standing it's ground. Vote Republican, vote against bankruptcy and riots in the streets.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:11:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas From the article: quote: They offer only one reason: they say that if Congress can make people buy insurance then it can make them buy anything it wishes. That's huge. A line Too Big to Cross. It is a line they will not let anyone cross no mater how many words one writes in argument for we do recognize it will forever change the relationship between Government and the private Citizen and this relationship is defined as the Government answers to the people and crossing this line changes that (by) making the people answer to Government in the form of the Mandate penalty if one does not buy insurance. Simple. Clean. Needs no long argument. It just "is". It's America. I think part of the reason the Conservatives were so weird in their arguments against Obamacare is that it either is constitutional, or a lot of other things are not. Go ahead and try to find any argument against Obamacare that doesn't apply equally to Medicare. A supreme court ruling that threatened Medicare (and I'd be tempted to file suit to get out of paying that tax just for the political points) would end the Republican party... Ok. Simple. Medicare is supported by taxes, taxes that are only collected if you engage in commerce. Obamacare is supported by a mandate that is collected if you breath. Are you listening?

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas From the article: quote: They offer only one reason: they say that if Congress can make people buy insurance then it can make them buy anything it wishes. That's huge. A line Too Big to Cross. It is a line they will not let anyone cross no mater how many words one writes in argument for we do recognize it will forever change the relationship between Government and the private Citizen and this relationship is defined as the Government answers to the people and crossing this line changes that (by) making the people answer to Government in the form of the Mandate penalty if one does not buy insurance. Simple. Clean. Needs no long argument. It just "is". It's America. I think part of the reason the Conservatives were so weird in their arguments against Obamacare is that it either is constitutional, or a lot of other things are not. Go ahead and try to find any argument against Obamacare that doesn't apply equally to Medicare. A supreme court ruling that threatened Medicare (and I'd be tempted to file suit to get out of paying that tax just for the political points) would end the Republican party... Ok. Simple. Medicare is supported by taxes, taxes that are only collected if you engage in commerce. Obamacare is supported by a mandate that is collected if you breath. Are you listening? Um, Obamacare is supported by income taxes on people who don't pay (directly or indirectly) for health insurance. Or to put it another way, there is an income tax with a 100% deduction for folks who pay for health insurance. Similar to the way the current income tax gives a deduction for paying for child care and college costs. So are you arguing that the Income Tax is unconstitutional? Cause I think there is an amendment to the constitution that would disagree with you. Are you listening?

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:22:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year. Which we do not have, remember? It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Pure fantasy. Just ask Greece and France. Now. "Many" here mention VA and Medicare budgets. This is borrowed money at the current time. But even if it was not, the VA obligations are expensive because the treatment for our Vets is many times very envolved and expensive. Many hospitials are caring for Vets 24/7. So, the point is you cannot simplyi do away with the VA and use that money to support some free health care coverage scheme because the Vets would lack this envolved care. Medicare and Medicaid are supported by those who paid into this in the form of taxes. So, taxing them to pay for your free healthcare is not going to happen because then it would water their paid for care down and give it to the leaches in society. Not happening. You pay to play. More so now and in the future as our borrowing from China stops and there is no money for anything other than Social Security obligations and VA and Defense. But. At least we will avoid Greece and Spain type meltdowns.

mnottertail -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:31:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Ok. Simple. Medicare is supported by taxes, taxes that are only collected if you engage in commerce. Obamacare is supported by a mandate that is collected if you breath. Are you listening? One can listen to lies and buncombe at any time, it will not suffice to make it true. The mandate is not based upon breathing. It is a pathetic misnomer.

Owner59 -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:31:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year. Which we do not have, remember? It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Pure fantasy. Just ask Greece and France. Now. "Many" here mention VA and Medicare budgets. This is borrowed money at the current time. But even if it was not, the VA obligations are expensive because the treatment for our Vets is many times very envolved and expensive. Many hospitials are caring for Vets 24/7. So, the point is you cannot simplyi do away with the VA and use that money to support some free health care coverage scheme because the Vets would lack this envolved care. Medicare and Medicaid are supported by those who paid into this in the form of taxes. So, taxing them to pay for your free healthcare is not going to happen because then it would water their paid for care down and give it to the leaches in society. Not happening. You pay to play. More so now and in the future as our borrowing from China stops and there is no money for anything other than Social Security obligations and VA and Defense. But. At least we will avoid Greece and Spain type meltdowns. Well....when a family is broke.....the use their money on food and medical bills and housing......you know....to stay alive. They don`t go out and buy new cars for their rich family members. So if the US so broke......why are we giving new cars(special tax breaks)to rich people?

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year. Which we do not have, remember? It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Pure fantasy. Just ask Greece and France. Now. "Many" here mention VA and Medicare budgets. This is borrowed money at the current time. But even if it was not, the VA obligations are expensive because the treatment for our Vets is many times very envolved and expensive. Many hospitials are caring for Vets 24/7. So, the point is you cannot simplyi do away with the VA and use that money to support some free health care coverage scheme because the Vets would lack this envolved care. Medicare and Medicaid are supported by those who paid into this in the form of taxes. So, taxing them to pay for your free healthcare is not going to happen because then it would water their paid for care down and give it to the leaches in society. Not happening. You pay to play. More so now and in the future as our borrowing from China stops and there is no money for anything other than Social Security obligations and VA and Defense. But. At least we will avoid Greece and Spain type meltdowns. What makes you think there will be money for Defense? The defense budget is part of the discretionary spending budget, Social Security and Medicare are mandatory spending. If we don't solve the health care mess, medicare spending will keep rising, and then defense spending goes to zero or taxes go up.

farglebargle -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:57:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Ok. Simple. Medicare is supported by taxes, taxes that are only collected if you engage in commerce. Obamacare is supported by a mandate that is collected if you breath. Are you listening? Show me one person who isn't plugged into 'commerce'.

xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:01:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: outhere69 Sure. Let 'em die. It's weird that the Republicans are hard-over on the mandate. They're the ones that demanded it instead of having a single-payer plan, which is what Obama wanted in the first place. We're the only first-world country without universal health care. Folks didn't care much as long as the unemployment rate was low enough that the problem was "in the noise". Only now, with widespread unemployment, has the problem of insurance-tied-to-employment finally made the news. I suspect so they could tank the whole thing by forcing it into this mandate, and subsequently this legal challenge, whereas a single payer plan would have been harder to challenge on constitutional grounds. What doesn't make sense is why they're challenging universal healthcare at all, if they're so business minded, since business benefits form this as much, if not more than anybody - every unionized industry in the country is sitting on huge pension funds, and facing escalating dependency ratios that prevent them from expanding, the benefit to these firms would be immediate, and even with outsourcing, it's hard to imagine jobs will not be created as a result. As usual, I suspect the considerations are political rather than practical: having taken a rhetorical stand on "small government" (stronger in theory than in praxis), they don't want to lose their reactionary core with an appeal to the middle. I have to admit, I'd like to see a better argument w/regards to the limiting principle - I'm not sure "politics" is a strong enough firewall, our political system having been largely hijacked by corporate PAC's, who would probably not be averse to forcing everybody to buy Broccoli if it increases their margins. Although, it would probably be more like GM soybeans.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02