CBS didn't stop Andy Rooney

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by RedRide

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.

I don't mean to interrupt the essay contest, but, throwing around completely false statements like that isn't winning any arguments for you. Took me exactly 2 seconds in google to prove that wrong.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...th-174086.html

If "every constitutional scholar" could agree on ANYTHING, the world might explode.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by yarrr

I don't mean to interrupt the essay contest, but, throwing around completely false statements like that isn't winning any arguments for you. Took me exactly 2 seconds in google to prove that wrong.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-...th-174086.html

If "every constitutional scholar" could agree on ANYTHING, the world might explode.

I do believe you are confusing legal scholars with constitutional scholars. You are also confusing politics with reality. The Texas state attorney general (Greg Abbott) is not exactly non patisan.

From youk link:

...........Several legal scholars, however, say Abbott's constitutional analysis falls short because it underestimates congressional power and relies on a selective reading of prior Supreme Court rulings.........

So, even the link you posted bolsters my statements.

Granted, there might be a constitutional scholar or two who may have a question about the legality of the mandate but the madate does stand on solid legal constititional ground.

BTW, Obama was himself a "constitutional law professor" so, I believe he would personally be aware of any potential problems in this area.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by RedRide

Every Constitutional scholar says the health insurance madate is constitutional.
It speaks volumes that the right wing did not bat an eyelash when the republicans (like Mitt Romney and John McCain) proposed the same mandate.

The pupose of a madate is to insure that there is a lage enouigh pool to cover claims and to insure that those who have insurance are not paying for health care for those who choose not to have insurance. Unless someone is very rich, I can't imagine the mindset that would make someone decide that they don't need health insurance other then a selfish "let society pay my medical bills" attitude.

The madate will help insure that that people will pay their own way as far as health insurance is concerned. Republicans liked the idea in the past but, now that Obama agrees, they no longer like it? It sounds like pure politics to me.
It does seem that the madate details is a bit of a compromise and it's more intended to change the mindset of the US poulation.

Like I said the bill is not perfect but is is closer to acceptable than the status quo.

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to force a citizen to purchase a product/service and from a private business no less? This is the first time in US history that such a law has passed.

What's next, a mandate that each US citizen must purchase a new GM vehicle every 5 years to insure the prolonged success of the US auto industry for the benefit of our economy? Sound ridiculous? Well that's what we're dealing with here.

I'd like to know what these so called scholar's argument is for this. The commerce clause? It does NOT apply.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the federal government to force a citizen to purchase a product/service and from a private business no less? This is the first time in US history that such a law has passed.

What's next, a mandate that each US citizen must purchase a new GM vehicle every 5 years to insure the prolonged success of the US auto industry for the benefit of our economy? Sound ridiculous? Well that's what we're dealing with here.

I'd like to know what these so called scholar's argument is for this. The commerce clause? It does NOT apply.

You got it a bit backwards
Where in ther constitution does it say you can't?

Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society.

The health care bill is not designed to insure the succes of any industry. It is to insure health care for the citizens of the richest country on the planet.
Its really sad the we need a law to insure this particulurly in a country that claims to have "Christian values".

I can say "what's next" also.
What's next, people who refuse to purchase food and expect others to pay for it to keep them alive as they do with health insursance that they also refuse to purchase?

BTW, we are all required by laws to purchase car insurance.
But you dont need car and therefore they/you don't need insurance you say.
Can you also say that you will never have health issues? It's a given, you are alive and you will have a need for health care even if you never owned a car.

[cali yaris]

What do you mean "without the post"?

He (being the OP), meant without the original Andy Rooney post, which he withdrew (since Andy Rooney didn't say it).

Carry on...

[TLyttle]

I can't believe that the US has screwed up health care to such a level! It seems that they worked at it. And some of the statements made here are truly bizarre.

The way you guys say it, I should have NO health care at all. For many years, I did not make enough money to pay for US-style health care: low-paying jobs, jobs where much of my productive time was spent helping the handicapped, yet I had high-level health care the whole time. Canada solved the health care problems decades ago by getting rid of the middle men, both in the health insurance and hospital systems, yet this concept is lost on the US. Communism! Really? We all pay taxes to support the system, and those taxes are used equitably for all citizens: how can that be wrong??

At first, the doctors and administrators howled about it (doctors went on strike(!) for a few weeks), but everyone survived fine, certainly the patients. The hospitals became government-monitored (NOT government-run), and the doctors lost no wages; they could still afford their new boat.

Is the US so paranoid about such a system that they really believe all the hype put out by the health companies? Is Canada the only country that is getting far more bang for the health care buck? Good grief, be open-minded enough to look around at what the rest of the free, civilised world is doing, and soon you will see that the US pays more than anyone else, yet gets squat for their money: you pay the most for the 20th-best health care. Gee, real bargain there, alright...

[Altitude]

^^ The worst part is that the people that rail against it willfully ignore the fact that our health care is - in part - so expensive because hospitals and insurance companies jack up their prices and premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured. We're all paying for it one way or another.

[yarrr]

Car insurance IS different because as you pointed out, you have a choice to use roads. I still disagree with the fact that people make a profit off of something required by law, though.

"Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society."

Ok, except I've only gone to the doctor's once in seven years, and that cost me $650, not $50,000. I guess that makes me stupid...

If this travesty passes, I'm gonna become a shaman and claim separation of church and state.

[RedRide]

Originally Posted by yarrr

Car insurance IS different because as you pointed out, you have a choice to use roads. I still disagree with the fact that people make a profit off of something required by law, though.

"Fact is, the mandate is intended to persuade stupid people who think they don't neeed health insurance to get insurance so they will cease to be an economic burden on society."

Ok, except I've only gone to the doctor's once in seven years, and that cost me $650, not $50,000. I guess that makes me stupid...

If this travesty passes, I'm gonna become a shaman and claim separation of church and state.

I guess you are a psychic, super human individual and you know will never need health care in the future. You know you will never get sick or get injured for the rest of your life.

I assume you don't have a family. Not having health insurace when you have a family is not only stupid but, immoral IMO.

You went to the doc once and it only cost you $650?
As Frank Barone would say....... HOLY CRAP!!!!


BTW, I got a flash for you, it already passed.

[TLyttle]

You're not far off on the food analogy, true enough. I don't know how prominent a part food banks play in the survival of the poor in the US; up here food banks are necessary. Choosing between food and rent is a tough one, so food banks keep many people alive. Add to rent, power, heat, etc, the cost of health care would make it impossible for some to survive ANY illness requiring treatment.

By the way, I had a stroke: the only card I had to show at the hospital was my health care card, no Visa, no Mastercard, no bank records. We are not in the best part of Canada, either; most Provinces charge nothing for health care, but BC residents get charged $52 a month. Everyone is covered, and the charge is dropped for those below a certain income level. And my "previously existing condition" (the stroke) changes nothing, ever.

Why is this impossible in the US? Because "private enterprise" won't allow it: profits before people...

[RedRide]

You got it, "profits before people" is the name of the game with health care insurance and that's why we needed reform.

It's the free enterprise sys run amuck driven by blatent greed.

[Kal-El]

You guys are under the impression that the insurance companies make big profits. Reality check: it's about 6%. That's very low for any business. They already pay out much higher cost reinbursements than the government (Medicare/Medicaid). Doctors would be out of business if all of their reimbursements were through Medicare. Everything that government touches goes bankrupt. Why is there so much confidence in government? Social security, Medicare, the post office, ect. are all bankrupt. Expecting it to change now is insanity.

[Kal-El]

Also, guess who's the biggest denier of healthcare is? You guessed it - government. They turn away a higher percentage than any insurance company. Yet we believe that a government takeover will give everybody coverage. Remarkable.

[yaris-me]

Govt doesn't have to turn a profit and congress never tries to balance the budget. Wake-up people! It's not about who should or should not have healthcare. Who should profit or not profit. Govt can't manage anything without messing it up. Social Security, Medicare are bankrupt, full of IOUs. Obama spent $1.4 trillion without thinking that there is no money. The deficit is at $14 trillion and the unfunded deficit is at $57 trillion. That is $71 trillion and the burden is on our children and grand children. Is this the legacy you want to leave for the future generation? They'll say that our generation had its head up you know where.

[Rick]

It has been asked,

"Where in the constitution does it say you can't?" (fedgov controlled healthcare)

Try the tenth amendment. You don't need constitutional scholars to understand it. The whole document was written for the common folk to understand. Constitutional scholars are only needed to obfucate what it means. You all should read it some time. It's not that odiously long!

If you can't show me (and everyone else) where the constitution says fedgov can control healthcare then the tenth amendment says they can't. Period. The States can, the People can, but NOT fedgov.

All fedgov has done well is wreck shit and kill people. (The military is the only great success they can claim.) Over my lifetime I have observed that most of what's wrong they caused. We need much less of them, not more! I'm not anti-American, just anti historical progressivism.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Kal-El]

^Exactly.

I don't know why it's so difficult for some to understand.

The Constitution clearly restricts the FEDERAL Government from implementing such sweeping legislation that effects states individual rights. These matters are to be left to the states and their people. With this bill, a majority of states oppose it. 60% of all US citizens want it repealed. How can the Federal Government force such an act that clearly violates the wishes of The People.

It's why Massachusetts was able to do it individually. That's the state's right. If a state wants to bankrupt themselves, they're free to. The Federal Government, in this case, has just imposed legislation that forces huge costs to state budgets that want nothing to do with it. Texas along with a handful of other states have played responsibly and are among the few who are doing well financially. Now, they will be crippled like the rest of the liberal states under mountains of debt.

It's just like all of the other social issues. Guns laws, gay marriage, DMV laws, state tax laws, and endless state regulations involving industry and everything else is all left to the state. Notice that the federal government has no power in these matters (or at least very limited).

[frownonfun]

it's not a government takeover. for or against the legislation i don't really care. but please stop calling it a government takeover of healthcare. best i can figure we are still dealing with the insurance companies... not the government.

also the post office isn't technically run by the government either. just sayin.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by frownonfun

it's not a government takeover. for or against the legislation i don't really care. but please stop calling it a government takeover of healthcare. best i can figure we are still dealing with the insurance companies... not the government.

You're missing the big picture or the planned and inevitable end result of all this. Yes, I said planned. Obama and many other liberals at the top have said it in clear words that this is just the first step to a single payer system (government of course). Obama has said it not just once, but many times.

The whole structure is designed to eliminate private insurance - even though they are currently not admitting it. All of the regulations set into place will, without a doubt, bankrupt private insurance. It's only a matter of time that government will be the only entity left.

That, my friend, is a government takeover.