Forbes: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

[twa]

That is the same problem we will have with the new system(as well as the former one)...red pill,blue pill,somebodys gotta put limits

Madison...I think we will simply change the rules,if the court does not first

[Larry]

The real sticking point is where to draw the line. No matter where it is, there will be a whole bunch of people who are just barely on the wrong side of it who can't afford more coverage and who will die from terrible diseases. If you move the line to provide care for them as well, you just end up saying no to the next "layer" of just-barely-uncovered people with equally tragic stories. It's easy to say that "basic care" or a "minimal level" of insurance coverage should be a "right," and it's easy to say the focus should be on preventative care. It's hard to say what those terms actually mean.

(That's not to say that I think it's a fundamentally bad idea. I just think implementing it would be extraordinarily difficult.)

No doubt.

The thought also occurs to me that a system where the feds "pay" for the minimum level of care would really change the dynamics of the political situation.

You'd have a situation where both the voters, and the insurance industry (and the doctors) would all be pushing for more and more things to be covered by the government.

[twa]

Larry if you fund it with a dedicated tax and require services to be provided only under funds from it ,it will limit itself

The voters have the option of increasing the tax

[Larry]

Larry if you fund it with a dedicated tax and require services to be provided only under funds from it ,it will limit itself

The voters have the option of increasing the tax

Yeah, the voters would never allow a politician to give them more goodies without raising the tax to pay for it.

[twa]

Well it certainly is not stopping them now:ols:

[Madison Redskin]

Madison...I think we will simply change the rules,if the court does not first

I was only joking ... I don't know whether Obamacare is constitutional.

[aREDSKIN]

So, your position is that the Constitution forbids Congress from passing laws that apply to everybody?

The SC will soon, I hope, be the final arbiter of this "law." Current count- 26 states on board to rescind this "law".

[Larry]

The SC will soon, I hope, be the final arbiter of this "law." Current count- 26 states on board to rescind this "law".

And therefore?

I asked you to explain you logic. (Actually, I pointed out that you weren't using any, but what's the difference?)

Your response is to announce how many states have Republican government?

[Thiebear]

That is a good find I had never seen that one before. However it will not convince those against the mandate because their stance is not rooted in reason. The US government has all types of mandates and to try to paint the health insurance mandate as some sort of policy that is not like the others is quite funny. So while I think this is another example of the history of government mandates in this country, it will not change anyone's mind who is against it.

So your saying if i don't agree with you i lack reason.

And seeing as i have no reason i'll just say you are in the minority.

[Larry]

So your saying if i don't agree with you i lack reason.

And seeing as i have no reason i'll just say you are in the minority.

Boy, that sure convinced him of your reason.

[Thiebear]

Larry if you fund it with a dedicated tax and require services to be provided only under funds from it ,it will limit itself

The voters have the option of increasing the tax

First Congress will treat it as if its super important to micromanage.

Then they have to explain why people are dying and they spend more money on Military bases.

It will then get automatic increases that Congress would have to stop (like their raises).

Universal Healthcare is not going anywhere.... How its paid for is our debate after this next veto.

---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 04:52 PM ----------

Boy, that sure convinced him of your reason.

did you not see the first seven words in the second sentence?

[aREDSKIN]

And therefore?

I asked you to explain you logic. (Actually, I pointed out that you weren't using any, but what's the difference?)

Your response is to announce how many states have Republican government?

And you logic is that a very narrowly tailored law in effect in 1798 can be used to infer, legitimize and be used as the basis for the legality obamacare??

Right.

The SC will decide this not YOU or me.

[Predicto]

To be fair, that same Congress passed the "Alien and Sedition acts" which was CLEARLY unconsitutional.

And was signed by John Adams

Just goes to show how dumb it really is to rely on "original intent."

Take that Scalia, you punk!

---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 04:26 PM ----------

The SC will decide this not YOU or me.

Unfortunately, that is true. And the current Supreme Court has already shown a strong propensity for judicial activism in favor of conservative causes, so I suspect it will be shot down.

[Larry]

And you logic is that a very narrowly tailored law in effect in 1798 can be used to infer, legitimize and be used as the basis for the legality obamacare??

No, my point is that "well, Obamacare applies to everybody, therefore it's Unconstitutional" is a load of BS that won't fit in the largest truck Terex makes.

----------

Just like my response to the folks who argue that "Well, the DMV requiring insurance only applies to people who drive, and you don't HAVE to drive" is:

So, suppose they modify Obamacare so that it only applies to people who have a job? Y'all think it's Constitutional then? After all, you don't HAVE to have a job.

Or even better, make it apply to everybody who has a home. People who can prove that they were homeless for the entire tax year are exempt from the tax. OK with that? If I announce that "you don't HAVE to live indoors", are you going to agree that I've made a valid, logical, Constitutional argument?

----------

There's perfectly logical reasons to believe that this law is Unconstitutional. I even know some of them.

In fact, -I- think it's Unconstitutional. But then again, I'm a Libertarian. I think LOTS of things are Unconstitutional. Like the government regulating food quality or education. I think that searching people who want to get on an airplane is Unconstitutional.

That said, though, this law is in no way any

more

Unconstitutional than millions of other laws that everybody but me thinks are A-OK.

But "it applies to everybody" isn't one of them.

[twa]

I was only joking ... I don't know whether Obamacare is constitutional.

Apparently only one man in America does at this point ...of course it helps that he is a federal judge

Even he has not invalidated the whole

[Prosperity]

Nowhere does that mandate all,it is specific to commerce and employment...nor is their a tax/fine(whatever they claim it is this week) for not doing so(being a seaman)

Ya might as well cite workmans comp laws

lawyers and judges are funny that way...

[Larry]

Nowhere does that mandate all,it is specific to commerce and employment...nor is their a tax/fine(whatever they claim it is this week) for not doing so(being a seaman)

Ya might as well cite workmans comp laws

Again, though.

Whether Obamacare is Constitutional or not cannot hinge on whether it applies to everyone or to only some. Lots of federal laws apply to everyone.

Nor can this law be Constitutional, but Obamacare be unconstitutional, because the latter has a penalty. Lots of federal laws have penalties, and are Constitutional.

[twa]

Again, though.

Whether Obamacare is Constitutional or not cannot hinge on whether it applies to everyone or to only some. Lots of federal laws apply to everyone.

Nor can this law be Constitutional, but Obamacare be unconstitutional, because the latter has a penalty. Lots of federal laws have penalties, and are Constitutional.

I certainly agree inequality under the laws exists ,as does equality

Judge Hudson disagrees with you on the penalty part,and at this point it is only his opinion that matters.

How many penalize inactivity in commerce?