CBS didn't stop Andy Rooney

[yaris-me]

You guys can have fun, even without the post. Interesting.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by yaris-me

You guys can have fun, even without the post. Interesting.

What do you mean "without the post"?

Health care issues were just a part of the false transcript we're talking about
and it just happened to become the discussion.

I don't see anything wrong with a friendly discussion about one of life's most critical issues.

Originally Posted by RedRide

This is a copy of the text concerning the "mandate tax" as written in the bill:

2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.— 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.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.


So, in realty there is no real provision to collect the so calked mandate tax.
They can tell you to pay it but it can't be legally collected.

BTW the reform bill was written by countless committees and constantly changed and perverted into the bill that was finally passed and is now law. I admit that it's not perfect.
However, the status quo was no longer a viable option and the biil is at least a start.
Refinements etc are sure to follow in the coming years and I hope we as a county can agree on sensible changes.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that a mandate to purchase health insurance was first proposed by some republicans in response to The Clinton administration's health care reform discussions.

Well, my point is that there is now a huge problem with the whole structure of the bill (of course almost the entire bill is a disgrace but I'll try not to get into all that ). Of course a federal mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional which is the first flaw. But the realization that no one will be forced to pay into the system anyway is quite remarkable. I continue to believe that nearly half this country believes that government programs happen without having to be paid for. We're are talking about trillions of dollars here and now we find out that we can indeed "game the system". By law, we can't be turned away for any health service. Yet not a single American will be required to pay for coverage. I may be crazy, but it looks like there may be a slight mathematical problem. No?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.