Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Odd. I donlt see anything in the ruling that cites the clause I seek.
Cite please.
You edited out the answer to the question:
That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.
This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:
Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.
Odd. I donlt see anything in the ruling that cites the clause I seek.
Cite please.
You edited out the answer to the question:
That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.
This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:
Although the Chief Justice rejected the governments Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the governments alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, thats the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.
I asked:
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Nothing in your response, which addresses the specific question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, addresses that much broader question.
Now that you understand the question, please do try again.
You edited out the answer to the question:
That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.
This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:
Although the Chief Justice rejected the governments Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the governments alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, thats the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.
I asked:
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Nothing in your response, which addresses the specific question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, addresses that much broader question.
Now that you understand the question, please do try again.
Your question is an ignorant question. It implies that unless the constitution lists an "individual mandate" then it is unconstitutional.
The constitution?
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
That was covered in the Supreme Court ruling. I will defer to them on this question.
This is what Republican Justice John Roberts said:
Although the Chief Justice rejected the governments Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the governments alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, thats the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.
Article I Section 9 specifically excludes this as a tax. Roberts erred.
Either you do not understand my question or you know you cannot answer my question -- either way, your respose fails to meaningfully address it.I asked:
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Nothing in your response, which addresses the specific question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, addresses that much broader question.
Now that you understand the question, please do try again.
Your question is an ignorant question. It implies that unless the constitution lists an "individual mandate" then it is unconstitutional.
Please do try again.
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Please note that your canned repose about Roberts' opinion regarding the tax penalty related to the individual mandate does -nothing- to meaningfully address this question.
Either you do not understand my question or you know you cannot answer my question -- either way, your respose fails to meaningfully address it.Your question is an ignorant question. It implies that unless the constitution lists an "individual mandate" then it is unconstitutional.
Please do try again.
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Please note that your canned repose about Roberts' opinion regarding the tax penalty related to the individual mandate does -nothing- to meaningfully address this question.
He literally cannot answer the question. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate.
This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.
Still waiting for an answer.Either you do not understand my question or you know you cannot answer my question -- either way, your respose fails to meaningfully address it.
Please do try again.
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Please note that your canned repose about Roberts' opinion regarding the tax penalty related to the individual mandate does -nothing- to meaningfully address this question.
He literally cannot answer the question. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate.
If you ever watch higher level debates, the one thing you would never see from a good debater is a personal insult. However, when it comes to weak debaters, they always go to the personal insult. It is correctly considered a sign of weakness and shows an inability on the part of the stumped personal attacker to attack arguments.
The constitution doesn't say anything about airplanes. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional?
That's fine, so long as others are not forced to foot the bill.If someone is born with an illness, how they can get coverage for it? Everyone should have coverage, no matter if they have a pre existing illness or not.This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.
That's fine, so long as others are not forced to foot the bill.If someone is born with an illness, how they can get coverage for it? Everyone should have coverage, no matter if they have a pre existing illness or not.This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.
His view is let them die, but he won't be honest enough to say that. He's a selfish child, like most here, it's to be expected.That's fine, so long as others are not forced to foot the bill.If someone is born with an illness, how they can get coverage for it? Everyone should have coverage, no matter if they have a pre existing illness or not.This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.
You literally are too stupid to engage.Either you do not understand my question or you know you cannot answer my question -- either way, your respose fails to meaningfully address it.
Please do try again.
What clause of the constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation dealing with health care?
Please note that your canned repose about Roberts' opinion regarding the tax penalty related to the individual mandate does -nothing- to meaningfully address this question.
He literally cannot answer the question. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate.
If you ever watch higher level debates, the one thing you would never see from a good debater is a personal insult. However, when it comes to weak debaters, they always go to the personal insult. It is correctly considered a sign of weakness and shows an inability on the part of the stumped personal attacker to attack arguments.
The constitution doesn't say anything about airplanes. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional?
I realize you aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the pouch. But going back to the OP, why do you think insurance companies don't cover PEs? Or at least didnt until they were forced to.This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.
If someone is born with an illness, how they can get coverage for it? Everyone should have coverage, no matter if they have a pre existing illness or not.
That's fine, so long as others are not forced to foot the bill.If someone is born with an illness, how they can get coverage for it? Everyone should have coverage, no matter if they have a pre existing illness or not.
That means the sick person would have to pay for their own coverage when its not their fault they have a pre existing condition.
My career as an underwriter for insurance companies and HMO's for 50 years was to deny people with pre-existing conditions. If they were already insured, and the group was not large enough to cover the one million dollar pre-mature baby, then my job was to raise the rates of the group at the annual renewal date so much that they would drop our company, and become some other insurance companies' problem. Only the other companies, being aware of that, demanded the last three years of claims experience before issuing the employer a policy. In that case, the employer usually found a way to remove John Doe from their payroll, along with his premature baby.
We shed bitter tears while doing this for the last 50 years.
Lie or not that's how it is done. The way to get the contractor you want, the one where your friend works and can take you out to dinner, is to get two other companies to bid who always bid higher. Works like a charm.My career as an underwriter for insurance companies and HMO's for 50 years was to deny people with pre-existing conditions. If they were already insured, and the group was not large enough to cover the one million dollar pre-mature baby, then my job was to raise the rates of the group at the annual renewal date so much that they would drop our company, and become some other insurance companies' problem. Only the other companies, being aware of that, demanded the last three years of claims experience before issuing the employer a policy. In that case, the employer usually found a way to remove John Doe from their payroll, along with his premature baby.
We shed bitter tears while doing this for the last 50 years.
Which no company is interested in provided to people who are already sick. You don't insure cars that were already wrecked.That's fine, so long as others are not forced to foot the bill.
That means the sick person would have to pay for their own coverage when its not their fault they have a pre existing condition.
What if it is their fault they have a pre-existing condition? What difference does it make? Lots of things aren't someone's fault. So what? This isn't a morality debate. It's about medical coverage.
Which no company is interested in provided to people who are already sick. You don't insure cars that were already wrecked.That means the sick person would have to pay for their own coverage when its not their fault they have a pre existing condition.
What if it is their fault they have a pre-existing condition? What difference does it make? Lots of things aren't someone's fault. So what? This isn't a morality debate. It's about medical coverage.
Please present a sound argument as to why state should force the young and healthy to subsidize the health care costs of the old and sick, and/or as to why the state sholuld force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
