2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[francoHFW]

Obama thought the mandate was unnecessary, that people would want it anyway- and they will.

This just proves that 2/3 are duped and don't know what they're talking about. Not surprising considering the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the cowardly corporate media...

 

[Syphon]

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"

there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything — from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product — in this instance, body armor.

based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.

 

[Listening]

More crapp claims from the left.

We'll see what the SCOTUS says. It is unfortunate for the left (but good for America) that this garbage can be overturned and all the trash that followed it put in the dump.

 

[Listening]

Obama thought the mandate was unnecessary, that people would want it anyway- and they will.

This just proves that 2/3 are duped and don't know what they're talking about. Not surprising considering the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the cowardly corporate media...

Maybe 2/3 or 99 2/3rds are smarter than you and see this for what it is.

 

[Syphon]

More crapp claims from the left.

We'll see what the SCOTUS says. It is unfortunate for the left (but good for America) that this garbage can be overturned and all the trash that followed it put in the dump.

outside the mandate, point to which part of the law you actually disagree with. specifically the section. i can guarantee you havent read a single word of it.

 

[Political Junky]

Fox News

Megyn Kelly confronts Romney on mandates.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.

No. They did not. There is no such rider and the question of severability is therefore debatable.

The ACA is certainly unworkable without it, though.

If the mandate falls, ObamaCare falls with it, since the alleged zero cost to the federal budget of the ACA all hinges on the mandate.

It would be interesting to see a poll that asks people if they would still like to see the mandate eliminated if it means all of ObamaCare goes with it.

The zero cost is rather meaningless as it is not true anyway but it would fail on the preexisting conditions as that would make insurance simply unworkable period. Any insurance company would fail as a business almost immediately. A real survey would link these two facts together because the preexisting conditions part of the law is massively popular. Should they do such a thing though, I believe you would see widespread opposition to repealing it and that would not fit with the goal of the pollsters in this case.

The ACA is law and will remain so. Until we get single payer, that is.

That is the sad but likely case.

There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.

There is no explaining the lying bullshit you post here when talking about others positions. No one is against a healthy society. We are against government mandates and the loss of rights.

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"

there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times

The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything — from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product — in this instance, body armor.

based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.

Both meaningless. The contention is not that the government cannot regulate ownership but rather that they can MANDATE the purchase of a specific product. There is ZERO precedence for this on a federal level because it has never happened before.

 

[JoeB131]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

As Health Care Law’s Trial Approaches, Two-Thirds Say Ditch Individual Mandate - ABC News

Yes, people are woefully misinformed on what this law is. Thankfully, the justices won't be.

The justices will probably uphold it for no other reason than they know that if they strike down the individual mandate, the private insurance system would collapse within five years. (Without the ability to restrict for "pre-existing conditions", people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick.)

 

[JoeB131]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

All ObamaCare does is spread the costs around a little more by forcing people into the system, subsidzing others, and reducing a few costs like eliminating the people who use emergency rooms as their family doctors.

Because we see Health Coverage as a form of compensation rather than as a public service like every other sensible country does, we come up with these creative concepts of how you've "earned" your health care when in fact, when you need it, you are taking more than you ever put in.

 

[The Rabbi]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

All ObamaCare does is spread the costs around a little more by forcing people into the system, subsidzing others, and reducing a few costs like eliminating the people who use emergency rooms as their family doctors.

Because we see Health Coverage as a form of compensation rather than as a public service like every other sensible country does, we come up with these creative concepts of how you've "earned" your health care when in fact, when you need it, you are taking more than you ever put in.

"Forcing" is the key word here. I don't want government "forcing" its citizens into anything short of national emergency.
That is the difference. The Left wants to force people to behave in certain ways. The Right only wants to force them not to behave in certain ways.
Health insurance is fundamentally no different from any other insurance. That is why it is compensation when paid by employers.
Obamacare is a demonstrated disaster waiting to happen. Every state that has tried this system has had exactly the same experience: exploding costs. Tennessee dismantled Tenncare for exactly this reason. Why anyone thinks it will be different this time is beyond me.
If yoy think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

....And, much LIKE the "abortion law".....the general-public (eventually) prefers....

....Affordable Care....

....after considering the alternative....especially when it affects THEM....PERSONALLY!!!​

 

[The Rabbi]

Send in the clowns.

 

[FA_Q2]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

In fact, it makes the problem worse by holding the public hostage to insurance companies when what we really need is less insurance on the base cases with more for the extreme cases. I need insurance for cancer, not birth control. Missing limbs, not a broken arm. When you get a cold there is no reason to have the insurance company pay for the doctor visit - it is asinine.

 

[8537]

Boy, The Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich are going to be awfully pissed when they learn the mandate they proposed 20+ years ago is unconstitutional.

 

[JoeB131]

"Forcing" is the key word here. I don't want government "forcing" its citizens into anything short of national emergency.
That is the difference. The Left wants to force people to behave in certain ways. The Right only wants to force them not to behave in certain ways.
Health insurance is fundamentally no different from any other insurance. That is why it is compensation when paid by employers.
Obamacare is a demonstrated disaster waiting to happen. Every state that has tried this system has had exactly the same experience: exploding costs. Tennessee dismantled Tenncare for exactly this reason. Why anyone thinks it will be different this time is beyond me.
If yoy think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

Both the left and the right want to force people to do things they don't want to do. So that argument doesn't fly.

Every other industrialized country has single payer health coverage.

They spend less, live longer, have less babies die in infancy, have less bankruptcy....

It's like you just pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, I guess.

 

[8537]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

Well, health care costs are going to continue to be a larger share of incomes for quite a long time. That's true in every developed country. What do you want to do about it, offer less health care? Less advanced health care? I don't mean that sarcastically - it's a very difficult issue and the idea that health care costs are increasing are a natural outcome of people living longer and accessing better health technology.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all?

 

[The Rabbi]

"Forcing" is the key word here. I don't want government "forcing" its citizens into anything short of national emergency.
That is the difference. The Left wants to force people to behave in certain ways. The Right only wants to force them not to behave in certain ways.
Health insurance is fundamentally no different from any other insurance. That is why it is compensation when paid by employers.
Obamacare is a demonstrated disaster waiting to happen. Every state that has tried this system has had exactly the same experience: exploding costs. Tennessee dismantled Tenncare for exactly this reason. Why anyone thinks it will be different this time is beyond me.
If yoy think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

Both the left and the right want to force people to do things they don't want to do. So that argument doesn't fly.

Every other industrialized country has single payer health coverage.

They spend less, live longer, have less babies die in infancy, have less bankruptcy....

It's like you just pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, I guess.

Remind me what the right wants to force. And no, abortion doesn't count.
I don't give a shit about "every other industrialized nation." That is crap. It is a non-argument. Every other industrialized nation has lower corporate tax rates than we do. Do you support lower taxes on corporations?

 

[The Rabbi]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

Well, health care costs are going to continue to be a larger share of incomes for quite a long time. That's true in every developed country. What do you want to do about it, offer less health care? Less advanced health care? I don't mean that sarcastically - it's a very difficult issue and the idea that health care costs are increasing are a natural outcome of people living longer and accessing better health technology.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing after all?

Except those costs are rising in part because of gov't interference. Obamacare will make that trend worse, much worse.

 

[JoeB131]

My own thought on ObamaCare (or what we used to call RomneyCare) is that it really doesn't address the real problem.... that health care costs are increasing at three times the rate of regular inflation, combined with a demographically aging society.

In fact, it makes the problem worse by holding the public hostage to insurance companies when what we really need is less insurance on the base cases with more for the extreme cases. I need insurance for cancer, not birth control. Missing limbs, not a broken arm. When you get a cold there is no reason to have the insurance company pay for the doctor visit - it is asinine.

I actually kind of agree with this. But here's the thing, this is how the doctors make their money.

I had an operation that is usually considered "elective", but I had a medical reason for it. My doctor charged my insurance company $32,000. A co-worker tried to get the same operation, but in her case, it really was elective and the insurance company wouldn't cover it. Same Doctor. Same procedure. They did it for her for $17,000.

The problem with "Pay as you go" health coverage is that people will neglect that cold until it turns into Pneumonia. They'll hobble around on that broken ankle hoping it will get better on its own.

The other part of the problem is that instead of just paying people, and letting them get a policy that fits their needs, we've made health insurance a form of compensation. While wages for working folks have remained flat in the last 30 years, the cost of health insurance has ballooned.

If we just paid people what their insurance cost and made them go out and get their own insurance, the system would collapse. It would become like car insurance, and older people would be like the ones who get frequent accidents- they'd be uninsurable.