Individual mandate in trouble?

[Syphon]

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

again, is going outside a choice?
is getting cancer a choice?

last time ill ask before i ignore you since you plainly wont answer simple questions.

Ignore me if you don't want to answer my question truthfully

you refused to answer a simple yes or no question 4 times now. so yes i will now ignore your argument, since youve shown an ability to actually have one.

 

[SniperFire]

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

again, is going outside a choice?
is getting cancer a choice?

last time ill ask before i ignore you since you plainly wont answer simple questions.

It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry.

 

[Syphon]

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

again, is going outside a choice?
is getting cancer a choice?

last time ill ask before i ignore you since you plainly wont answer simple questions.

It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry.

still avoiding the question i see.

and who said anything about equal outcome, how about equal access and opportunity.

 

[SniperFire]

again, is going outside a choice?
is getting cancer a choice?

last time ill ask before i ignore you since you plainly wont answer simple questions.

It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry.

still avoiding the question i see.

and who said anything about equal outcome, how about equal access and opportunity.

I am giving you the answer. You just don't want to hear it.

 

[jillian]

Really...because this is your unaltered post, isn't it?

really, you dont think the health and safety of its citizens is the governments job?

you willing to put your money where you mouth is?

you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home[/QUOTE]

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[initforme]

"It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "

Nope. It isnt. That is until you get sick. Your tune would change quick. It'll happen. You might take the brave and courageous bravo macho lie that people in america try to use. But people are people. When we need help then we need help. americans arent any braver than anybody else.

 

[Syphon]

"It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "

Nope. It isnt. That is until you get sick. Your tune would change quick. It'll happen. You might take the brave and courageous bravo macho lie that people in america try to use. But people are people. When we need help then we need help. americans arent any braver than anybody else.

if this was also the case, then hospitals by law could refuse to provide services to those who they have deemed too expensive and have an inability to pay. i mean, the bottom line is the bottom line right??

 

[SniperFire]

you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law[/QUOTE]

That is horseshit. It was pointed out there were potential Constitutional problems with the individual mandate fairly early on.

 

[initforme]

Well then as I've told others who have big medical bills

"pay only what you can pay. Take out a minimum payment plan." You owe 25,000? Pay $100 a month tops. Good nuff. Guess it will work out no matter what.

 

[SniperFire]

"It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "

Nope. It isnt. That is until you get sick. Your tune would change quick.

It either is the Federal governments job, or it is not the Federal governments job, regardless of my 'tune.'

You are getting your ass kicked.

 

[SniperFire]

"It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "

Nope. It isnt. That is until you get sick. Your tune would change quick. It'll happen. You might take the brave and courageous bravo macho lie that people in america try to use. But people are people. When we need help then we need help. americans arent any braver than anybody else.

if this was also the case, then hospitals by law could refuse to provide services to those who they have deemed too expensive and have an inability to pay. i mean, the bottom line is the bottom line right??

Correct.

 

[initforme]

Well then, I say its fine to let the hospitals keep taking in those who cannot pay for it. Fine with me. No individual mandate. As long as the health care is provided for for those who need it, no bid deal. I for one would never plan on paying the entire exhorbitant bill for a catastrophic illness. Sorry.

 

[SniperFire]

Well then, I say its fine to let the hospitals keep taking in those who cannot pay for it. Fine with me.

Of course you do. You are a Communist.

 

[J.E.D]

As usual, the decision will be in the hands of the swing vote - Kennedy. From the reporting that I've heard on this, the liberal justices seem to be siding with the fed gov't, the conservative justices seem to be siding with the states, and Kennedy seems like he could go either way.

 

[Syphon]

"It is not the Federal government's job to guarantee you equal outcome in life. Sorry. "

Nope. It isnt. That is until you get sick. Your tune would change quick. It'll happen. You might take the brave and courageous bravo macho lie that people in america try to use. But people are people. When we need help then we need help. americans arent any braver than anybody else.

if this was also the case, then hospitals by law could refuse to provide services to those who they have deemed too expensive and have an inability to pay. i mean, the bottom line is the bottom line right??

Correct.

The why did the apostle known as Reagan sign the law forcing hospitals to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay? That's government intervention in the private market. Oh wait.... I guess Reagan is a socialist now....

 

[The Rabbi]

if this was also the case, then hospitals by law could refuse to provide services to those who they have deemed too expensive and have an inability to pay. i mean, the bottom line is the bottom line right??

Correct.

The why did the apostle known as Reagan sign the law forcing hospitals to treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay? That's government intervention in the private market. Oh wait.... I guess Reagan is a socialist now....

So that makes you a Reagan supporter?
Noted.

 

[SniperFire]

if this was also the case, then hospitals by law could refuse to provide services to those who they have deemed too expensive and have an inability to pay. i mean, the bottom line is the bottom line right??

Correct.

That's government intervention in the private market.

The government often intervenes in 'private markets.' Are you fucking stupid or something?

 

[Ropey]

you keep avoiding the question. answer my simple questions and we can proceed.

Your being disengenuous with your answer to me.
If this law is passed, yes the government can mandate you wear a brimmed hat outside in the Sun. Spin it until the cows come home

nonsense, my friend. that's absurd.

the mandate is a means of making everyone carry their fair share. that was the individual responsibility that the Heritage Foundation and all the rightwingers wanted. It's only because a democratic president enacted it that the right now takes issue with it.

That's what's disingenuous.

I'll also point out that the commerce power is plenary and direct your attention to Wickard v Filburn.

Wickard v. Filburn | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Yes it is a means of making the people pay a fair share and it's the government who decides the fair share? The commerce power is all encompassing indeed. It's rather nice of you to mention that since it shows the depth of the connection from government to commerce at all levels. Capitalism is commerce based and Capitalism under the control of the government?



OK...

 

[Polk]

Kennedy said Health Care might be unique. duh. You people against this are totally deluded, ignorant, and duped. Also goes for single payer people. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and Holland and Switz. are happy with their similar to ACA systems...

If they say the mandate is is no go, who needs it? LOL Obama doesn't need it...

IF the mandate goes? Then where's the funding going to come from? YOU DO know that they are counting on the individual mandate the fund it, right?

If the mandate is struck down? ObamaCare folds like a flimsy house of cards.

The mandate doesn't fund the provisions. It would make the system much more expensive for insurance companies though.

 

[jillian]

the liberal justices seem to be siding with the fed gov't, the conservative justices seem to be siding with the states, and Kennedy seems like he could go either way.

do you realize the irony of those positions?