Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on February 02, 2011, 09:08:59 AM
-
Let’s begin today’s history lesson with the following news:
(CNN) -- Officials from 14 states have gone to court to block the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, arguing the law's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.
Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
The history lesson
In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.
This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.
This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”
Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.
The other option is to name Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. in the lawsuits. However, it might be difficult to convince a judge, or the public, that those men didn't know the limits of the Constitution
Because the attorneys general research is obviously lacking a comprehensive review of history and the Constitution, I’m providing a copy of the 5th Congress’ 1798 legislation.
CHAP. LXXVII – An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled -
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship
or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any
port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be
admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the
number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel
since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall
pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every
seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out
of the wages of such seamen.
SEC2. . And be it further enacted, That from and after the first day
of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose
enrolment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a
new enrolment or license before the master of such ship or vessel shall
first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen,
and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or
vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and
pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such
seamen have been severally employed, as aforesaid; which sum the said
master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.
And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is
herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.
SEC3. . And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the
several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by
them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the Secretary of the Treasury;
and the President of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or
disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established
in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no
such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:
Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended
within the same.
SEC. 4. .And be it further enacted, That if any surplus shall remain
of the monies to be collected by virtue of this act, after defraying the
expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together ,
with such private donations as may be made for that purpose (which the
President is hereby authorized to receive) shall be invested in the stock
of the United States, under the direction of the President; and when,
in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby
authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or
provision for buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings,
when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.
SEC5. . And be it further enacted, That the President of the United
States be, and he is hereby authorized to nominate and appoint, in
such ports of the United States, as he may think proper, one or more
persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United
States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund
assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this
act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen,
under such general instructions as shall be given by, the President of
the United States, for that purpose, and also subject to the like general
instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals as the President may
direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors
shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the President, who is
authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death
or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said
directors shall render an account of the monies received and expended
by them, once in every quarter of a year, to the Secretary of the Treasury,
or such other person as the President shall direct; but no other
allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except
the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge
of the duties required by this act.
APPROVED July 16, 1798.
-
::) ::)
Were all american citizens forced to be Seamen?
BTW moron - Ho do ou defendthe mandate now when ObaMadoff campaigned AGAINST IT!
-
::) ::)
Were all american citizens forced to be Seamen?
BTW moron - Ho do ou defendthe mandate now when ObaMadoff campaigned AGAINST IT!
no but seamen were private citizens and this was a mandate to buy an insurance product with penalties for non-compliance
just pointing out the precedent is there
-
::) ::)
Were all american citizens forced to be Seamen?
Exactly.
-
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
________________________ ________
Not all citizens are sailors or seamen.
Straw - what if the Federal Govt forced you to purchase a AR 15, Glock 19, and Shotgun for home defese since due to budget cuts, they could no longer afford a police force?
hhhhmmmmm? ? ? ? ?
-
no but seamen were private citizens and this was a mandate to buy an insurance product with penalties for non-compliance
just pointing out the precedent is there
Which has absolutely nothing to do with citizens. You do realize the military are forced to also have health insurance IIRC?
-
This thread's looking to take its place alongside the other embarrassing disasters Straw Man has made.
Paging George Washington.
-
lol
-
seamen were private citizens so there is clearly a precedent for the Federal government requiring private citizens to purchase health care insurance
if one segment of private citizens have been required to purchase insurance then what's the argument that it cant' be extended to all private citizens.
btw - if you need another example - check your 2010 W-2 and you'll see the government required you to pay into medicare
the precedents are there
-
seamen were private citizens so there is clearly a precedent for the Federal government requiring private citizens to purchase health care insurance
if one segment of private citizens have been required to purchase insurance then what's the argument that it cant' be extended to all private citizens.
btw - if you need another example - check your 2010 W-2 and you'll see the government required you to pay into medicare
the precedents are there
Typical STRAW MAN crap from you.
Are you really as stupid and dense as this? Can you really not see the stupidity of this?
1. Not all citizens are or were seamen. This is the same as car insurance. If you dont want to pay insurance - dont own a car. But you have a choice!
2. Medicar isa public program - Obamacare is a mandate to purchase a prvate product rom a private company under force of law as a condition of being alive. Are you really that dense and ignorant to not see the difference?
-
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.
________________________ ________
Not all citizens are sailors or seamen.
Straw - what if the Federal Govt forced you to purchase a AR 15, Glock 19, and Shotgun for home defese since due to budget cuts, they could no longer afford a police force?
hhhhmmmmm? ? ? ? ?
there is a precedent for that too which I've mentioned more than once on this board
google Militia Act of 1792
-
Typical STRAW MAN crap from you.
Are you really as stupid and dense as this? Can you really not see the stupidity of this?
1. Not all citizens are or were seamen. This is the same as car insurance. If you dont want to pay insurance - dont own a car. But you have a choice!
2. Medicar isa public program - Obamacare is a mandate to purchase a prvate product rom a private company under force of law as a condition of being alive. Are you really that dense and ignorant to not see the difference?
1. private citizen = private citizen. What's the difference if one is a sailor and another is a teacher and another is an attorney etc... BTW - I'd be fine with an one time exclusion provided people waived their rights to get back in once they are sick or injured. That's the point of the mandate - to get rid of free loaders
2. I'm all for scrapping the current legislation and going with the public option. I assume you must be in favor of that too
-
1. private citizen = private citizen. What's the difference if one is a sailor and another is a teacher and another is an attorney etc... BTW - I'd be fine with an one time exclusion provided people waived their rights to get back in once they are sick or injured. That's the point of the mandate - to get rid of free loaders
2. I'm all for scrapping the current legislation and going with the public option. I assume you must be in favor of that too
Difference is that you have the CHOICE not to be a sailor if you don't want to.
As for the "public option" - we already have that. Its called Medicaid.
-
Difference is that you have the CHOICE not to be a sailor if you don't want to.
As for the "public option" - we already have that. Its called Medicaid.
yeah - all you have to do it be completely broke and you can get medicaid
how would that help you if you're a middle income earner and you need to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars for say cancer treatment?
-
yeah - all you have to do it be completely broke and you can get medicaid
how would that help you if you're a middle income earner and you need to pay for hundreds of thousands of dollars for say cancer treatment?
Here is the problem genius - ObamaCares' mandates are driving up the cost of premiums beyond what anyone can afford and more and more will be driven on to medicaid as it is.
I really don't think if Obama tried any harder he could have come up with a worse pofs bill than he and pelosi did.
It does the complete opposite of what he promised.
-
-
-
so again, I assume you must be advocating for a single payer system
I agree with you on that
-
Whether I agree with it or not, it would probably be legal if they set up a govt run plan and collected taxes for it.
What they are doing now is insane.
-
Whether I agree with it or not, it would probably be legal if they set up a govt run plan and collected taxes for it. What they are doing now is insane.
I'm sure you don't recall but that was my preferred option too, as well as many Dems. You might recall that many people were pissed that the Dems and Obama caved on that.
-
I'm sure you don't recall but that was my preferred option too, as well as many Dems. You might recall that many people were pissed that the Dems and Obama caved on that.
Look, I think most people want an affordable plan that covers catastrophic shit and you dont have to worry about being bankrupted.
The way things are going - its not affordable in the least bit.
-
Look, I think most people want an affordable plan that covers catastrophic shit and you dont have to worry about being bankrupted.
The way things are going - its not affordable in the least bit.
yet former playing field had companies like Walmart that essentially gamed the system to move the burden of insuring their employees to the US tax payer
Shit - one HUGE and SIMPLE fix would be to get rid of the legal monopoly that we've given health insurance companies. I don't even see how that is legal to begin with
-
This is a repost, but as I understand it the Act refers to seamen engaged on US licensed vessels AND engaged in commerce with the States and foreign governments. And regulating that commerce is expressely authorized in the constitution.
If anything, this precedent seems more akin to contractors with the federal government being required to pay a certain wage and benefit amount.
For Obamacare, you don't have to be doing anything remotely related and you still have to pay for health insurance. I'd like to know if there's any precendent for that.
-
This is a repost, but as I understand it the Act refers to seamen engaged on US licensed vessels AND engaged in commerce with the States and foreign governments. And regulating that commerce is expressely authorized in the constitution.
If anything, this precedent seems more akin to contractors with the federal government being required to pay a certain wage and benefit amount.
For Obamacare, you don't have to be doing anything remotely related and you still have to pay for health insurance. I'd like to know if there's any precendent for that.
SKIP FOR THE WIN
the mandate youve put forth straw regulates actions...as in if you CHOOSE to be a sailor you have to buy insurance...like car insurance
obamas idiocy mandates INACTION...
you cannot regulate INACTION...you can regulate ACTION
nice try though
-
seamen were private citizens so there is clearly a precedent for the Federal government requiring private citizens to purchase health care insurance
if one segment of private citizens have been required to purchase insurance then what's the argument that it cant' be extended to all private citizens.
btw - if you need another example - check your 2010 W-2 and you'll see the government required you to pay into medicare
the precedents are there
The argument is that those private citizens VOLUNTEERED to do business with the federal government, just as private companies today, that do business with the Department of Defense, have to abide by certain DoD rules.
As others have stated, they weren't forced to be seaman. Nor were they forced to buy insurance once they stopped being seaman.
And, if what Skip said is accurate, those seamen were indeed GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
-
The argument is that those private citizens VOLUNTEERED to do business with the federal government, just as private companies today, that do business with the Department of Defense, have to abide by certain DoD rules.
As others have stated, they weren't forced to be seaman. Nor were they forced to buy insurance once they stopped being seaman.
And, if what Skip said is accurate, those seamen were indeed GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
They were employed by privately owned vessels. They were not government employees
-
They were employed by privately owned vessels. They were not government employees
If those vessels did work for the government, they were effectively government employees.
Private businessmen can contract themselves and their vehicles/vessels to do government work. But, to get paid, they must follow certain government rules.
No other private citizen, in a different line of work, was required to purchase insurance. You didn't see blacksmiths having to buy this, did you?
-
They were employed by privately owned vessels. They were not government employees
and did the govt force them to work on those vessels?
or did they just say IF you work for these vessels you have to meet certain requirements?
kinda like auto insurance?
and nothing like the health care bill?
-
and did the govt force them to work on those vessels?
or did they just say IF you work for these vessels you have to meet certain requirements?
kinda like auto insurance?
and nothing like the health care bill?
no idea, but I would expect the answer would be no, although the question is irrelevent
pick any field of work today (prior to this legislation)
did the government require you to participate in the employer's health insurance coverage and require you to pay for it?
-
What if someone is broke, has no job, no income, and the subsidies don't cover the costs for insurance?
-
no idea, but I would expect the answer would be no, although the question is irrelevent
pick any field of work today (prior to this legislation)
did the government require you to participate in the employer's health insurance coverage and require you to pay for it?
you can opt out of employee health plans!!!!!!!
YOU CANT OPT OUT OF THIS BULL SHIT!!!!!!!!!
youre ignorance is boundless
-
If those vessels did work for the government, they were effectively government employees.
Private businessmen can contract themselves and their vehicles/vessels to do government work. But, to get paid, they must follow certain government rules.
No other private citizen, in a different line of work, was required to purchase insurance. You didn't see blacksmiths having to buy this, did you?
again
this was directed at privately owned vessels
-
again
this was directed at privately owned vessels
that contracted with the govt, right?
again either way it doesnt matter b/c the govt didnt force them to work as sailors for those companies...
your justification for this mandate by using that stipulation is ignorant and just plain idiotic
-
that contracted with the govt, right?
again either way it doesnt matter b/c the govt didnt force them to work as sailors for those companies...
your justification for this mandate by using that stipulation is ignorant and just plain idiotic
wrong
-
Straw - ever hear of prevailing wage jobs with the govt?
Yes or no?
-
wrong
great rebuttle dumb ass...
didnt address one point, side stepped everything, ascerted more ignorance and gave no reasoning for your idiocy...
again did they force them to be sailors with these companies?
or did they say if your going to CHOOSE to be a sailor AND work for these companies you have to have insurance?
yea youre right thats exactly like saying EVERYONE must buy insurance REGARDLESS OF ANY PERSONAL CHOICES
moron
-
great rebuttle dumb ass...
didnt address one point, side stepped everything, ascerted more ignorance and gave no reasoning for your idiocy...
again did they force them to be sailors with these companies?
or did they say if your going to CHOOSE to be a sailor AND work for these companies you have to have insurance?
yea youre right thats exactly like saying EVERYONE must buy insurance REGARDLESS OF ANY PERSONAL CHOICES
moron
I answered your question dipshit
I could care less what you think about it
the fact is that the government chose an industry and required private workers in that industry to buy health insurance and penatlize those employers who did not collect the insurance
those are historical facts
you're free to draw your own conclusions about the significance of those facts
-
I answered your question dipshit
I could care less what you think about it
the fact is that the government chose an industry and required private workers in that industry to buy health insurance and penatlize those employers who did not collect the insurance
those are historical facts
you're free to draw your own conclusions about the significance of those facts
it didnt choose an industry it choose specific employers that did business with the govt...it didnt say all sailors did it?
i agree its a fact they did this, BUT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE CURRENT MANDATE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats the point
this is nothing like what youre trying to compare it to you dumb ass
-
it didnt choose an industry it choose specific employers that did business with the govt...it didnt say all sailors did it?
i agree its a fact they did this, BUT IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE CURRENT MANDATE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats the point
this is nothing like what youre trying to compare it to you dumb ass
ill answer that for you...
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States,
yet again another CHOICE!!!
tell me where the choice is in the idiotic mandate youre trying to compare to this legislation?
-
If you are well connected to this Admn, ACORN, SEIU, etc you get a waiver.
-
If you are well connected to this Admn, ACORN, SEIU, etc you get a waiver.
that must be the choice straw man is seeing...
if you choose to gobble the cock of the president you dont have to buy insurance
-
I really dont see how Straw cant see the difference here. I know he is dense, but come on already.
-
ill answer that for you...
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States,
yet again another CHOICE!!!
tell me where the choice is in the idiotic mandate youre trying to compare to this legislation?
you should have highlighted the following part instead.
privately owned ships "of the United States"
This was later expanded expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
so cleary there is a precedent for the Federal government to require private workers to purchase health insurance.
That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship
or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any
port of the United States
-
you should have highlighted the following part instead.
privately owned ships "of the United States"
This was later expanded expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
so cleary there is a precedent for the Federal government to require private workers to purchase health insurance.
yes straw just like your car is privately owned but guess what?
the govt didnt force you to buy that car, just like the govt didnt force any of those ppl to become sailors...
in response to the bold...AGAIN YOU FUKING MORON, that is regulating an ACTION as in they CHOOSE to become sailors...you can regulate ACTIONS
YOU CANNOT REGULATE INACTION
where is the choice in obamacares mandate?
^^^^^^
ANSWER THAT QUESTION BRAIN CHILD
-
Straw - very often times the govt sets conditions if you want to do businesswith it - such as prevailing wage laws, using union labor, etc.
However, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE not to bid work or contracts put out by the govt if you dont want to comply with that.
Where is the same choice in Bamacare?
-
you should have highlighted the following part instead.
privately owned ships "of the United States"
This was later expanded expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
so cleary there is a precedent for the Federal government to require private workers to purchase health insurance.
you continue to miss the point...
THEY MADE THE CHOICE TO DO THAT!!!!!!!!
WHERE IS THE CHOICE IN OBAMACARE?
-
Straw - very often times the govt sets conditions if you want to do businesswith it - such as prevailing wage laws, using union labor, etc.
However, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE not to bid work or contracts put out by the govt if you dont want to comply with that.
Where is the same choice in Bamacare?
I'd be fine with a one time opt out for anyone who wants it but they forfeit the option to ever get back in. and if they don't have their own private insurance ( or can't afford it or get tossed out by their insurance company etc..) they must pay for all care out of their own pocket, including any emergency care
I'd have no problem with that and I doubt very many people would be stupid enough to do that
-
I'd be fine with a one time opt out for anyone who wants it but they forfeit the option to ever get back in. and if they don't have their own private insurance ( or can't afford it or get tossed out by their insurance company etc..) they must pay for all care out of their own pocket, including any emergency care
I'd have no problem with that and I doubt very many people would be stupid enough to do that
way to answer his question straw man...
where is the choice in obama care?
as for the bold why dont we just pass that and then it would solve the entire problem, wouldnt it?
we dont need a mandate, no single payer etc...you pay for your own shit...
hmmm personal responsiblity...what a novel concept :D
-
Straw - very often times the govt sets conditions if you want to do businesswith it - such as prevailing wage laws, using union labor, etc.
However, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE not to bid work or contracts put out by the govt if you dont want to comply with that.
Where is the same choice in Bamacare?
This Act has nothing to do with government contracts. Participation was not an option. It was mandatory.
If you didn't pay you were essentially barred from doing business
-
way to answer his question straw man...
where is the choice in obama care?
as for the bold why dont we just pass that and then it would solve the entire problem, wouldnt it?
we dont need a mandate, no single payer etc...you pay for your own shit...
hmmm personal responsiblity...what a novel concept :D
you have a choice
partipate or pay a fine (just like the legislation from 1798)
-
you have a choice
partipate or pay a fine (just like the legislation from 1798)
Doesn't make it any less unconstitutional than the current rat fuck
-
And guess what genius - like obama said in his own clip -the problem is that this bill is drivig the costs of premiuims beynd the affordability for most people so in the end they will end up with the fine and no health care at all.
-
you have a choice
partipate or pay a fine (just like the legislation from 1798)
what if you dont want either?
thats not a choice you dumb ass...
youre comparison has a choice...as in the profession and company you work for...
auto insurance has a choice...as in if you choose to drive you need insurance
where is the choice in obamacare?
-
what if you dont want either?
thats not a choice you dumb ass...
youre comparison has a choice...as in the profession and company you work for...
auto insurance has a choice...as in if you choose to drive you need insurance
where is the choice in obamacare?
I don't want to pay my income tax or property tax either
i guess I can choose not to work and choose not to own a home
I'm sure people who were life long sailors were comforted by the fact that they could either pay the insurance or choose to stop working in the only field they've ever known
Like I said previously, Id' be fine it there was a one time "opt out" so people like you and 333 would take it and stfu
-
I don't want to pay my income tax or property tax either
i guess I can choose not to work and choose not to own a home
I'm sure people who were life long sailors were comforted by the fact that they could either pay the insurance or choose to stop working in the only field they've ever known
Like I said previously, Id' be fine it there was a one time "opt out" so people like you and 333 would take it and stfu
One problem the government does have the constitutional authority to tax, and property as well as portions of income tax are at state level which according to the 10th amendment is also constitutional.
Yes you can choose not to work or own a home, but up until the last 100 years you would have been on your own and would have had to depend on the good will of others. Now you can just get welfare and food stamps and be a social parasite.
-
I don't want to pay my income tax or property tax either
i guess I can choose not to work and choose not to own a home
I'm sure people who were life long sailors were comforted by the fact that they could either pay the insurance or choose to stop working in the only field they've ever known
Like I said previously, Id' be fine it there was a one time "opt out" so people like you and 333 would take it and stfu
LMFAO goodness gracious...except that the constitution allows for taxation....
it doesnt allow for mandating inaction...
you can squirm and make snide comments all you want doesnt change the FACT
the sailors had a choice to work in that industry and for that company...which is regulation after an action was made...
what choice do we get under obamacares mandate? what action do we take to justify regulating that action?
im not asking what youd be ok with...im asking what choice we get under obamacares mandate...
-
One problem the government does have the constitutional authority to tax, and property as well as portions of income tax are at state level which according to the 10th amendment is also constitutional.
Yes you can choose not to work or own a home, but up until the last 100 years you would have been on your own and would have had to depend on the good will of others. Now you can just get welfare and food stamps and be a social parasite.
you can also choose to not have insurancea and take care of all your health care needs in the emergency room and be a social parasite as well
-
you can also choose to not have insurancea and take care of all your health care needs in the emergency room and be a social parasite as well
Sure you can, but the way I was raised you have little pride and take care of your self, pay your own way and not be always looking for a hand out off the work of someone else. And that in itself is the problem being a social parasite is encouraged by the government, buying votes with the public monies.
-
LMFAO goodness gracious...except that the constitution allows for taxation....
it doesnt allow for mandating inaction...
you can squirm and make snide comments all you want doesnt change the FACT
the sailors had a choice to work in that industry and for that company...which is regulation after an action was made...
what choice do we get under obamacares mandate? what action do we take to justify regulating that action?
im not asking what youd be ok with...im asking what choice we get under obamacares mandate...
So I guess the Militia Act of 1792 was unconstitutional too
I guess the founders didn't understand the contintution that they themselves wrote just a few years earlier
It's just ashame they didnt' have the geniuses on GB.com to explain what their own intentions really were
-
So I guess the Militia Act of 1798 was unconstitutional too
I guess the founders didn't understand the contintution that they themselves wrote just a few years earlier
It's just ashame they didnt' have the geniuses on GB.com to explain what their own intentions really were
no b/c they REGULATED AN ACTION YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!
the private citizens choose to work in that industry and the company said if you work in this industry you must meet certain requirements...much like the EPA etc...does today you moron....
obama care doesnt regulate any actions!!!
it forces action...
thats the difference YOU FUKING MORON!!!!!!!!!
-
Straw - why didn't they mandate the whole nation carry health insurance?
-
Doesn't make it any less unconstitutional than the current rat fuck
Hahahaha resorting to disgusting name calling means severe lack of I.Q. Spazon is melting.
-
Hahahaha resorting to disgusting name calling means severe lack of I.Q. Spazon is melting.
Who did I call a name? If me calling the healthcare bill a rat fuck offends you then, well to bad
-
no b/c they REGULATED AN ACTION YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!
the private citizens choose to work in that industry and the company said if you work in this industry you must meet certain requirements...much like the EPA etc...does today you moron....
obama care doesnt regulate any actions!!!
it forces action...
thats the difference YOU FUKING MORON!!!!!!!!!
glad to see you finally learned how to spell moron
you sure get worked up over a silly message board
btw I have no clue what you're rambling about. When you talk about regulating "action" are you refering to the Militia Act of 1792.
You know, the one where the government required every citizen to purchase a gun and ammo
I dont' see any option to choose not to participate. if you were a citizen you had no choice
Isn't that unconstitutional ?
-
Sure you can, but the way I was raised you have little pride and take care of your self, pay your own way and not be always looking for a hand out off the work of someone else. And that in itself is the problem being a social parasite is encouraged by the government, buying votes with the public monies.
I feel the same way.
I've paid all my own living expenses, including insurance since the month after I graduated from college.
Even when i wasn't making shit I always had it covered because I would never want my parents to be bankrupted if I was really sick or injured. I honestly don't know why people are bitching about having to bu insurance when most would never consider not having it in the first place
-
Hahahaha resorting to disgusting name calling means severe lack of I.Q. Spazon is melting.
if want to see an example look at how often 3333 and Tony have resorted to name calling in this thread
shit - 333 started with his very first response to me in this thread
-
I feel the same way.
I've paid all my own living expenses, including insurance since the month after I graduated from college.
Even when i wasn't making shit I always had it covered because I would never want my parents to be bankrupted if I was really sick or injured. I honestly don't know why people are bitching about having to bu insurance when most would never consider not having it in the first place
Because the constitution doesn't give the federal government that authority, I am looking at the big picture with this being a lynch pin issue. If they can get away with this then the flood gates are open and America as we know it is over. We have a constitution in name only and an Omnipotent federal government that will have the power to control any and all aspects of our lives.
-
Because the constitution doesn't give the federal government that authority, I am looking at the big picture with this being a lynch pin issue. If they can get away with this then the flood gates are open and America as we know it is over. We have a constitution in name only and an Omnipotent federal government that will have the power to control any and all aspects of our lives.
where did they get the authority to require every citizen to purchas a gun (presumably from a private company)
how about if they just change the mandate to a tax
-
Straw - I called you a genius no?
-
Straw - I called you a genius no?
you can't see your own first post in this thread?
-
glad to see you finally learned how to spell moron
you sure get worked up over a silly message board
btw I have no clue what you're rambling about. When you talk about regulating "action" are you refering to the Militia Act of 1792.
You know, the one where the government required every citizen to purchase a gun and ammo
I dont' see any option to choose not to participate. if you were a citizen you had no choice
Isn't that unconstitutional ?
LOL and what happend to the militia act of 1792?
OH THATS RIGHT IT GOT REPEALED!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regulating an action is regulation of an action as in IF you choose to act in this way you have to meet certain requirements...
example...the legislation with sailors and auto insurance
regulating inaction is regulation that forces you to act as in you have no choice, you have to do this...
example being obamacares mandate
regulating action is legal, regulating inaction is not!!!!!!!!!!!
-
where did they get the authority to require every citizen to purchas a gun (presumably from a private company)
how about if they just change the mandate to a tax
that law was repealed....
you mean kinda like a single payer system?
-
where did they get the authority to require every citizen to purchas a gun (presumably from a private company)
how about if they just change the mandate to a tax
Well it didn't require every citizen to purchase a firearm, only white male citizens between he age of 18 and 45 with various exemptions. Besides it was repealed. And I'm pretty sure if the government wasn't able to call a militia the United States wouldn't exist at this point in time.
-
that law was repealed....
you mean kinda like a single payer system?
not because it was unconstitutional but because was basically ineffective and no longer necessary
still, the founders did pass it and you'd think they would understand the constitution which they themselves wrote
-
Well it didn't require every citizen to purchase a firearm, only white male citizens between he age of 18 and 45 with various exemptions. Besides it was repealed. And I'm pretty sure if the government wasn't able to call a militia the United States wouldn't exist at this point in time.
it wasn't repealed because it was deemed unconstitutional and just like the early insurance mandate it carved out which people were required to purchase. If a group of people can be defined in one set of legislation then I don't see why a "group" cannot be redefined in another piece of legislation.
btw - I've said many times I'd be fine with an opt out provision
opt out and then you're on your own
that's what all these freedom loving patriots claim they want right. They want to the governmetn to get off their back so I say make if that's what you want then we should give anyone who chooses the one time option to get out and stay out
-
not because it was unconstitutional but because was basically ineffective and no longer necessary
still, the founders did pass it and you'd think they would understand the constitution which they themselves wrote
they very much did you see the govt has the authority under the constitution to call out, organize and discipline militia...
education is a bitch to idiots with talking points...
http://www.slate.com/id/2278063/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#Constitution_and_Bill_of_Rights_.281787-1789.29
-
what part of the constitution gives the right to mandate health care strawman?
-
it wasn't repealed because it was deemed unconstitutional and just like the early insurance mandate it carved out which people were required to purchase. If a group of people can be defined in one set of legislation then I don't see why a "group" cannot be redefined in another piece of legislation.
btw - I've said many times I'd be fine with an opt out provision
opt out and then you're on your own
that's what all these freedom loving patriots claim they want right. They want to the governmetn to get off their back so I say make if that's what you want then we should give anyone who chooses the one time option to get out and stay out
Comparing the militia act with this health care bill is like comparing apples to tomato's. It is not even remotely the same thing. The very existence of the country doesn't hing on the ability to provide "affordable" health care.
-
what part of the constitution gives the right to mandate health care strawman?
the same part that allowed them to require citizens working on ships, riverboats, etc.. to pay for health insurance whether they wanted to or not
btw - change the mandate to a tax if you want or opt out
either one of those options works for me
-
the same part that allowed them to require citizens working on ships, riverboats, etc.. to pay for health insurance whether they wanted to or not
btw - change the mandate to a tax if you want or opt out
either one of those options works for me
LOL again dumb ass...that was regulating an action...like car insurance...they had the choice to work there
what choice does obamacare give us?
-
they very much did you see the govt has the authority under the constitution to call out, organize and discipline militia...
education is a bitch to idiots with talking points...
http://www.slate.com/id/2278063/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#Constitution_and_Bill_of_Rights_.281787-1789.29
do we require soldiers to purchase their own weapons?
-
do we require soldiers to purchase their own weapons?
ahhh i honestly couldnt tell you but again...ppl choose to be soldiers...
you seem to miss the main part...
there is a CHOICE in the things you try to compare to obamacares mandate...
In obama care there is NO CHOICE!!!!!!!!
thats the main difference...
-
LOL again dumb ass...that was regulating an action...like car insurance...they had the choice to work there
what choice does obamacare give us?
regulating action
what does that even mean
the govt specified a group of private workers and required them to pay for health insurance and penalized their employer if they did not
I don't why that can't be expanded to larger and larger groups or .... the largest group which is all citizens
for about the 5th time now, I'd be fine with a one time opt out
I think it woud turn out to be a good thing for the human race as the more stupid people will not have insurance and will die off sooner
I'm all for that and it would not effect the viability of the program as those who opt out can never get back in so they will not be a financial burden on the system
dont' you think that's a fair compromise?
-
regulating action
what does that even mean
the govt specified a group of private workers and required them to pay for health insurance and penalized their employer if they did not
I don't why that can't be expanded to larger and larger groups or .... the largest group which is all citizens
for about the 5th time now, I'd be fine with a one time opt out
I think it woud turn out to be a good thing for the human race as the more stupid people will not have insurance and will die off sooner
I'm all for that and it would not effect the viability of the program as those who opt out can never get back in so they will not be a financial burden on the system
dont' you think that's a fair compromise?
HOLY SHIT SON, are you really that dumb?
the govt specified that IF someone CHOSE to work in that industry with those companies...
IF and CHOSE...
there is not IF or CHOOSE for obamacare you idiot...
thats the difference...
why dont we just stop giving free health care to ppl? that would solve the problem all together as they are the reason for this bill...
-
HOLY SHIT SON, are you really that dumb?
the govt specified that IF someone CHOSE to work in that industry with those companies...
IF and CHOSE...
there is not IF or CHOOSE for obamacare you idiot...
thats the difference...
why dont we just stop giving free health care to ppl? that would solve the problem all together as they are the reason for this bill...
yet again
I've said I'm in favor of a one time choice to opt out
would you be in favor of that?
-
yet again
I've said I'm in favor of a one time choice to opt out
would you be in favor of that?
id be in favor of making ppl pay for their medical expenses...
if we did that then we wouldnt need to do anything else...
opt out of what, health insurance? single payer system?
-
id be in favor of making ppl pay for their medical expenses...
if we did that then we wouldnt need to do anything else...
so you're against the concept of insurance?
you're aware how health insurance is "paid for" most of the time ?
opt out of what, health insurance? single payer system?
we don't a single payer system
haven't you been bitching and moaning about the recent legislation...aka "Obamacare" (which most likely you aren't even on - I know I'm not)?
Don't you know what "choice" you've been bellyaching about for the last 2 pages ?
-
so you're against the concept of insurance?
you're aware how health insurance is "paid for" most of the time ?
we don't a single payer system
haven't you been bitching and moaning about the recent legislation...aka "Obamacare" (which most likely you aren't even on - I know I'm not)?
Don't you know what "choice" you've been bellyaching about for the last 2 pages ?
I never said i was against health insurance... ::)
my comment was for ppl that CHOOSE(again notice the CHOICE) to no have health insurance...
Im not in favor of a unconstitutional mandate that FORCES ppl to buy something against their CHOICE...
so no im not in favor of an opt out, im in favor of making ppl who CHOOSE to not have health insurance pay their medical expenses...RENDERING THE MANDATE POINTLESS!!!
-
I never said i was against health insurance... ::)
my comment was for ppl that CHOOSE(again notice the CHOICE) to no have health insurance...
dude - have you read your last few posts
id be in favor of making ppl pay for their medical expenses...
people (as a general rule) don't pay for their medical expenses (excluding deductables, co-pay etc)
I can't believe you confused abut what "choice" I'm talking about but just in case you're truly confused I'll make it crystal clear
I'm sure you will agree you've been bitching about the requiredment that in Obamacare that you have to buy health insurance
answer yes
or
no
feel free to explain but even a one word answer is fine
-
dude - have you read your last few posts
people (as a general rule) don't pay for their medical expenses (excluding deductables, co-pay etc)
LOL yes i have its a simple misunderstanding by you, something youve been doing since the very first post in this thread...
If ppl CHOOSE to not have health insurance then they should have to pay their own medical expenses...
if we did this would we need a mandate? NO we wouldnt b/c they are the reason for the mandate...
SO NOOOOOO im not for a one time opt out b/c IM NOT FOR THE MANDATE AT ALL
there is no need for the mandate if we made ppl take responsibility for their own actions...
-
LOL yes i have its a simple misunderstanding by you, something youve been doing since the very first post in this thread...
If ppl CHOOSE to not have health insurance then they should have to pay their own medical expenses...
no shit Sherlock - what other way would it be if you don't have medical insurance
if we did this would we need a mandate? NO we wouldnt b/c they are the reason for the mandate...
SO NOOOOOO im not for a one time opt out b/c IM NOT FOR THE MANDATE AT ALL
there is no need for the mandate if we made ppl take responsibility for their own actions...
I don't think you understand how insurance works.
if you're not going to have insurance but then want access to the system when you get sick then the system won't work
do you understand this?
When you've been bitching about "choice" I've been saying I'm fine giving you a one time choice to opt in our out. If you opt out then you're on your own. You can buy private insurance or pay all medical expenses out of pocket but you never get a chance to get back into the system. This way you can't harm the system by trying to get back in once you're sick
-
no shit Sherlock - what other way would it be if you don't have medical insurance
I don't think you understand how insurance works.
if you're not going to have insurance but then want access to the system when you get sick then the system won't work
do you understand this?
thats the way the system works now dumb ass...if ppl cant pay it gets passed on to the tax payer...THATS THE REASON FOR THE MANDATE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you force ppl to pay for their medical expenses if they CHOOSE to not carry health insurance...THEIR IS NO NEED FOR A MANDATE!!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???
When you've been bitching about "choice" I've been saying I'm fine giving you a one time choice to opt in our out. If you opt out then you're on your own. You can buy private insurance or pay all medical expenses out of pocket but you never get a chance to get back into the system. This way you can't harm the system by trying to get back in once you're sick
[/quote
LMFAO, goodness gracious bro youre really retarded...
the system thats being set up is still private...youre still buying private insurance whether youre in the system or not...do you not understand that?
-
thats the way the system works now dumb ass...if ppl cant pay it gets passed on to the tax payer...THATS THE REASON FOR THE MANDATE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you force ppl to pay for their medical expenses if they CHOOSE to not carry health insurance...THEIR IS NO NEED FOR A MANDATE!!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???
When you've been bitching about "choice" I've been saying I'm fine giving you a one time choice to opt in our out. If you opt out then you're on your own. You can buy private insurance or pay all medical expenses out of pocket but you never get a chance to get back into the system. This way you can't harm the system by trying to get back in once you're sick
[/quote
LMFAO, goodness gracious bro youre really retarded...
the system thats being set up is still private...youre still buying private insurance whether youre in the system or not...do you not understand that?
I swear I'm starting to think you're the one that truly is retarded (no joke)
it seems you don't actually understand how insurance works
You've been bitching about a mandate i.e the requirement that you have to purcahse insurance
yes or no
for the sake of time I'm going to ssume your answer is YES
the mandate is necessary so that everyone in the "risk pool" participates when they are healthy. Without this mandate the system would not work because we'd have people like you who CHOOSE not to buy insurance but would then want to get into the system when they get sick
How is it that you can't understand that simple concept?
you've made the following statement a few times so it's clear you have no clue how this works
if you force ppl to pay for their medical expenses if they CHOOSE to not carry health insurance...THEIR IS NO NEED FOR A MANDATE!!!!!!!!!!
if they don't have insurance (i.e. chose to opt out of the mandate) then they will be paying all expenses out of pocket and no one will be "forced' to do anything. It will be the automatic consequence of their actions. They have no health insurance so if they need health care they will pay it out of pocket or they won't get it
-
I swear I'm starting to think you're the one that truly is retarded (no joke)
it seems you don't actually understand how insurance works
You've been bitching about a mandate i.e the requirement that you have to purcahse insurance
yes or no
for the sake of time I'm going to ssume your answer is YES
the mandate is necessary so that everyone in the "risk pool" participates when they are healthy. Without this mandate the system would not work because we'd have people like you who CHOOSE not to buy insurance but would then want to get into the system when they get sick
How is it that you can't understand that simple concept?
NOT AT ALL BRAIN CHILD...if like the CURRENT SYSTEM there is say a year waiting period before treating pre-existing conditions after signing up then the mandate is not necissary...simply keep that in place and make ppl who CHOOSE not to carry insurance pay their own medical expenses...
the mandate is needed b/c...FIRST AND FOREMOST it takes the onus of paying for medical costs of those that dont have insurance and dont pay off the govt...MAKING PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL EXPENSES DEALS WITH THAT...also like you mentioned insurance needs more healthy ppl paying premiums than they do sick ppl taking payments...THEY SEEM TO BE DOING FINE RIGHT NOW PROFIT WISE...so simply make ppl who CHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE not to carry insurance pay their own way...
-
NOT AT ALL BRAIN CHILD...if like the CURRENT SYSTEM there is say a year waiting period before treating pre-existing conditions after signing up then the mandate is not necissary...simply keep that in place and make ppl who CHOOSE not to carry insurance pay their own medical expenses...
the mandate is needed b/c...FIRST AND FOREMOST it takes the onus of paying for medical costs of those that dont have insurance and dont pay off the govt...MAKING PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL EXPENSES DEALS WITH THAT...also like you mentioned insurance needs more healthy ppl paying premiums than they do sick ppl taking payments...THEY SEEM TO BE DOING FINE RIGHT NOW PROFIT WISE...so simply make ppl who CHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSEEE EEEEEEEEEEEE not to carry insurance pay their own way...
the mandate = requirement that everyone have some sort of insurance
you do understand that right ?
I'm not going any further if you don't understand that
yes or no answer is fine
-
the mandate = requirement that everyone have some sort of insurance
you do understand that right ?
I'm not going any further if you don't understand that
yes or no answer is fine
yes...
the reason = to take the onus of paying for medical expenses off of the govt for those that do not have health insurance and do not pay out of their own pocket...
you do understand that right?
Im not going any further if you dont understand that
yes or no answer is fine
-
regulating action
what does that even mean
the govt specified a group of private workers and required them to pay for health insurance and penalized their employer if they did not
I don't why that can't be expanded to larger and larger groups or .... the largest group which is all citizens
In order for Congress to make the individual mandate applicable to everybody, they have to show it's within the scope of the commerce clause. More specifically, that it falls under "activities affecting interstate commerce".
Obamacare is attempting to regulate economic inactivity.
Even the Constitutional lawyers for the government didn't try to argue the case on the grounds of this legislation. That should tell you something.
But, continue calling others retards. ::)
-
In order for Congress to make the individual mandate applicable to everybody, they have to show it's within the scope of the commerce clause. More specifically, that it falls under "activities affecting interstate commerce".
Obamacare is attempting to regulate economic inactivity.
Even the Constitutional lawyers for the government didn't try to argue the case on the grounds of this legislation. That should tell you something.
But, continue calling others retards. ::)
^^^^
THIS Straw
action, inaction
activity, inactivity...
-
yes...
the reason = to take the onus of paying for medical expenses off of the govt for those that do not have health insurance and do not pay out of their own pocket...
you do understand that right?
Im not going any further if you dont understand that
yes or no answer is fine
as usual, you have a very confused and tenuous grasp on what is a very simple concept but it's enough probably enough to move forward.
The current legislation requires you to have health insurance or you have to pay a very nominal penalty
this is something that you're opposed to because you say it takes away your ability to CHOOSE to not have health insurance
have I summarized your position correctly so far?
-
as usual, you have a very confused and tenuous grasp on what is a very simple concept but it's enough probably enough to move forward.
The current legislation requires you to have health insurance or you have to pay a very nominal penalty
this is something that you're opposed to because you say it takes away your ability to CHOOSE to not have health insurance
have I summarized your position correctly so far?
yes...
the reason = to take the onus of paying for medical expenses off of the govt for those that do not have health insurance and do not pay out of their own pocket...
you do understand that right?
Im not going any further if you dont understand that
yes or no answer is fine
I answered your question now be so kind as to answer mine...
-
Nominal fine my ass. They will jack it up sky high in time.
-
Nominal fine my ass. They will jack it up sky high in time.
guess it depends on what you think is expensive.
The fine is certainly less expensive than a years worth of the cheapest health insurance and there are exceptions for low income people so it's really only going to effect people who simply want to be reckless but still want to option of accessing the government insurance exchange once they are sick. My preference (as I've said many times) is to give everyone a one time option to either retain future access to the government exchanges or a one time option to forgo future access. If you choose to forgo future access then you pay no fine but you never get access to the exchange system. You still have the same access to employer group plans (which you can continue to choose not to participate) or purchase individual policy outside ouf an employer sponsored plan. What you don't get is the option to get back into the government plan once you are sick or injured. If we didn't have the mandate then millions of people would just forgo health insurance until they got sick or injured and would then want access to the government plan and that would destroy the "mechanism" of insurance. You can't have it both ways. You have to choose one or the other and then live with your choice
-
the mandate = requirement that everyone have some sort of insurance
you do understand that right ?
I'm not going any further if you don't understand that
yes or no answer is fine
yes...
the reason = to take the onus of paying for medical expenses off of the govt for those that do not have health insurance and do not pay out of their own pocket...
you do understand that right?
Im not going any further if you dont understand that
yes or no answer is fine
I answered your question now be so kind as to answer mine...
-
guess it depends on what you think is expensive.
The fine is certainly less expensive than a years worth of the cheapest health insurance and there are exceptions for low income people so it's really only going to effect people who simply want to be reckless but still want to option of accessing the government insurance exchange once they are sick. My preference (as I've said many times) is to give everyone a one time option to either retain future access to the government exchanges or a one time option to forgo future access. If you choose to forgo future access then you pay no fine but you never get access to the exchange system. You still have the same access to employer group plans (which you can continue to choose not to participate) or purchase individual policy outside ouf an employer sponsored plan. What you don't get is the option to get back into the government plan once you are sick or injured. If we didn't have the mandate then millions of people would just forgo health insurance until they got sick or injured and would then want access to the government plan and that would destroy the "mechanism" of insurance. You can't have it both ways. You have to choose one or the other and then live with your choice
why not just force ppl who CHOOOSE NOT to have insurance to pay their own medical expenses instead of passing it onto the tax payer?
that would eliminate the need for govt pooling and a mandate!!!!!
-
why not just force ppl who CHOOOSE NOT to have insurance to pay their own medical expenses instead of passing it onto the tax payer?
that would eliminate the need for govt pooling and a mandate!!!!!
you keep saying this and I can't figure out if you actually understand your own confused statement
if you don't have insurance then you must pay your own medical expenses
you have no other choice
do you?
-
you keep saying this and I can't figure out if you actually understand your own confused statement
if you don't have insurance then you must pay your own medical expenses
you have no other choice
do you?
part of the rationalization of the left in health care reform is that it will take alot of monetary burden off of the govt b/c ppl that dont have health care and get sick dont pay and those charges get passed on to the govt/tax payer...
do you understand that?
lets not go any further until you understand that part...
yes or no answer is fine
-
part of the rationalization of the left in health care reform is that it will take alot of monetary burden off of the govt b/c ppl that dont have health care and get sick dont pay and those charges get passed on to the govt/tax payer...
do you understand that?
lets not go any further until you understand that part...
yes or no answer is fine
I don't understand you sentence because it makes no sense
how can it simultanously take the monetary burden off the government and that sick people don't pay and those charges are passed on to the goverment
Your'e the only person I've heard make such a confused statement so I can't attribute it to anyone but you
you've made the same contradictory statement over and over and I've been trying to get you to explain it but I don't even think you understand why it makes no sense
-
I don't understand you sentence because it makes no sense
how can it simultanously take the monetary burden off the government and that sick people don't pay and those charges are passed on to the goverment
Your'e the only person I've heard make such a confused statement so I can't attribute it to anyone but you
you've made the same contradictory statement over and over and I've been trying to get you to explain it but I don't even think you understand why it makes no sense
LOL goodness gracious
dude thats the reason behind health care reform...
its b/c of the cost of health care on the govt....
right now the bills of ppl that dont pay get passed on to the govt...thats why the govt wants to mandate everyone have insurance...so that they wont have to pay for those bills...
if you simply pass legislation that requires ppl to pay for their health care if they CHOOSE to not carry insurance...there is no need for a mandate...
-
LOL goodness gracious
dude thats the reason behind health care reform...
its b/c of the cost of health care on the govt....
how can that be the reason when it doesn't even make any sense
right now the bills of ppl that dont pay get passed on to the govt...thats why the govt wants to mandate everyone have insurance...so that they wont have to pay for those bills...
completely untrue
people without insurance dont' pass the bill to the governement
what they do instead is that they get no health care at all and they stay chronically sick or injured and eventually die earlier than they would have if they had health insurance
some people evenntually go to the emergency room so maybe that's what you're talking about but you don't get treatment for ongoing chronic conditions at the emergency room and you certainly don't get preventative care, exams, etc... A
if you simply pass legislation that requires ppl to pay for their health care if they CHOOSE to not carry insurance...there is no need for a mandate...
the mandate is a tiny part of the legiislation and it's necessary or the mechanism of insurance will cease to function because millions of people will choose to not pay for health insurance and once they become sick or injured, and unable to get private insurance then they will come with hat in hand to the public program. It would be the same as not having auto insurance and then getting in a wreck and demanding access to a governemnt plan.
Isn't the requireement of the mandate the lack of "choice" you've been bitching and moaning about?
-
::) ::)
Yeah, and what if the govt mandates that you eat broccoli, join a health club as part of its plan to fight obesity and bring down health costs? Is that ok with you?
-
::) ::)
Yeah, and what if the govt mandates that you eat broccoli, join a health club as part of its plan to fight obesity and bring down health costs? Is that ok with you?
let me know when that happens and I'll let you know what I think about it
I do think the government should mandate a complete neurological work up for you
-
let me know when that happens and I'll let you know what I think about it
I do think the government should mandate a complete neurological work up for you
::) ::)
So insult me while you cant refute my point. Got it.
-
::) ::)
So insult me while you cant refute my point. Got it.
you dont' have a point
you just made up some ridiculous scenario
how am I supposed to even take that seriously
btw - I belong to a gym, eat brocolli all the time and have paid for my own health insurance since the month I graduated from college
-
you dont' have a point
you just made up some ridiculous scenario
how am I supposed to even take that seriously
btw - I belong to a gym, eat brocolli all the time and have paid for my own health insurance since the month I graduated from college
Why is it ridiculous? Its the same argument you are advancing just different method.
-
Why is it ridiculous? Its the same argument you are advancing just different method.
it's ridiculous because there would be no reason to mandate that someone eat brocolli or join a gym
the only reason for a mandate in the healthcare legislation is to prevent people from not having insurance and then trying to access government program once they are sick or injured.
there is no comparinon between the two scenarios which is why it is ridiculous
-
it's ridiculous because there would be no reason to mandate that someone eat brocolli or join a gym
the only reason for a mandate in the healthcare legislation is to prevent people from not having insurance and then trying to access government program once they are sick or injured.
there is no comparinon between the two scenarios which is why it is ridiculous
There is no govt program jackass. The mndate is to buy PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY!
-
how can that be the reason when it doesn't even make any sense
completely untrue
people without insurance dont' pass the bill to the governement
what they do instead is that they get no health care at all and they stay chronically sick or injured and eventually die earlier than they would have if they had health insurance
some people evenntually go to the emergency room so maybe that's what you're talking about but you don't get treatment for ongoing chronic conditions at the emergency room and you certainly don't get preventative care, exams, etc... A
youve got to be shitting me...
how is this bill supposed to save the govt money then???
-
it's ridiculous because there would be no reason to mandate that someone eat brocolli or join a gym
the only reason for a mandate in the healthcare legislation is to prevent people from not having insurance and then trying to access government program once they are sick or injured.
there is no comparinon between the two scenarios which is why it is ridiculous
goodness gracious dude youre truly delusional
-
There is no govt program jackass. The mndate is to buy PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY!
I was referring to the health insurance exchanges
Health Insurance Exchanges:
The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015
-
goodness gracious dude youre truly delusional
do you have health insurance yet?
-
do you have health insurance yet?
yes i do not that it matters...lmfao...
while working part time and going to school at night I had to have an emergency root canal and paid out of pocket for it which all in all was about 1500 bucks and did so b/c i chose to go without insurance...
you know that whole personal responsibility thing?
-
yes i do not that it matters...lmfao...
while working part time and going to school at night I had to have an emergency root canal and paid out of pocket for it which all in all was about 1500 bucks and did so b/c i chose to go without insurance...
you know that whole personal responsibility thing?
good for you.
I'm glad to hear you're a responsible adult
if you were a bum you could have just passed that bill on to the government .....right?
You've said that many times on this thread
here's one example
thats the way the system works now dumb ass...if ppl cant pay it gets passed on to the tax payer...THATS THE REASON FOR THE MANDATE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how exactly would your 1500 bill be passed on to the tax payer had you chosen not to pay it?
-
good for you.
I'm glad to hear you're a responsible adult
if you were a bum you could have just passed that bill on to the government .....right?
You've said that many times on this thread
here's one example
how exactly would your 1500 bill be passed on to the tax payer had you chosen not to pay it?
well if seeing as the hospitals cant turn ppl away...what happens when those ppl dont pay???
are you going to explain how the govt is going to save money with the health care reform???
no, youre not...WHO FUCKING KNEW LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
well if seeing as the hospitals cant turn ppl away...what happens when those ppl dont pay???
are you going to explain how the govt is going to save money with the health care reform???
no, youre not...WHO FUCKING KNEW LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Lurker would be able to tell more about the programs, but I think EMTALA is an unfunded mandate - maybe used as a tax write-off, IDK.
But, if you're a "total bum", there is PHSA 330. Probably won't cover a root canal, but will cover basic medical services and preventitive dental.
Still, there's a lot of people who fall through the cracks - don't qualify for government and can't get it through employers, etc. It would be nice to see a plan (not the monstrosity of Obamacare), that would help these people. Just from a humanitarian aspect, the idea of the wealthiest country in the world not taking care of its own is kinda disturbing, IMO.
-
No shit skip! That's what we have been saying all along. Obamacare mandates expensive and unaffordable insurance to young and middle class people who can't aFford the premiums or cost of this shit sandwich.
They couyld have created a catsprohic plan, low premium, that covers stuff like that that would be highly affordable and accesible to most everyone.
Instead, they created a rube goldberg monstrosity that will drive premiums through the roof and make things drastically worse.
-
No shit skip! That's what we have been saying all along. Obamacare mandates expensive and unaffordable insurance to young and middle class people who can't aFford the premiums or cost of this shit sandwich.
They couyld have created a catsprohic plan, low premium, that covers stuff like that that would be highly affordable and accesible to most everyone.
Instead, they created a rube goldberg monstrosity that will drive premiums through the roof and make things drastically worse.
Uh, don't think I've ever supported Obamacare, but there's certainly portions of it I like. Elimination of duplicate programs/policies, getting rid of the pre-exisisting exclusions, clamping down on fraud in Medicaid/Medicare.
-
Obamacare is the largest unfunded mandate on the states itself as it shift millions to medicaid. Its a complete disaster and the bad far outweighs the good from a cost perspective.
-
I think Lurker would be able to tell more about the programs, but I think EMTALA is an unfunded mandate - maybe used as a tax write-off, IDK.
But, if you're a "total bum", there is PHSA 330. Probably won't cover a root canal, but will cover basic medical services and preventitive dental.
Still, there's a lot of people who fall through the cracks - don't qualify for government and can't get it through employers, etc. It would be nice to see a plan (not the monstrosity of Obamacare), that would help these people. Just from a humanitarian aspect, the idea of the wealthiest country in the world not taking care of its own is kinda disturbing, IMO.
I agree...
also help drive down costs by creating more competition and helping to limit the exposure to law suits etc...
im not against ppl having affordable health care im against making ppl do something if they dont want to
-
well if seeing as the hospitals cant turn ppl away...what happens when those ppl dont pay???
are you going to explain how the govt is going to save money with the health care reform???
no, youre not...WHO FUCKING KNEW LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
try going to a hospital without health insurance for anything except a medical emergency and see how fast you're turned away
if people just "passed along the bill to the government" as you have said then we'd have socialized medicine in this country and there would be no need for any reform.
We'd all just have comprehensive health care from birth to death on the government dime
Is that how you think the system has been working all this time?
-
try going to a hospital without health insurance for anything except a medical emergency and see how fast you're turned away
if people just "passed along the bill to the government" as you have said then we'd have socialized medicine in this country and there would be no need for any reform.
We'd all just have comprehensive health care from birth to death on the government dime
Is that how you think the system has been working all this time?
LOL and how many ppl of those going to say ben taub here in houston do you think have health insurance?
how do you think the ppl that dont have health care get help in emergencies?
who do you think pays for that?
LOL you dont get to go to any docter at any time but guess what the hospitals cant turn you away in emergencies...
who pays for that straw?
are you going to tell us how this bill is going to save the govt money?
-
LOL and how many ppl of those going to say ben taub here in houston do you think have health insurance?
how do you think the ppl that dont have health care get help in emergencies?
who do you think pays for that?
LOL you dont get to go to any docter at any time but guess what the hospitals cant turn you away in emergencies...
who pays for that straw?
are you going to tell us how this bill is going to save the govt money?
so you think someone can walk into a hospital without insurance and demand cancer treatment or demand a surgery, or some other treatment and the hospital just provides it?........then after the fact the hospital just sends the bill to the government?
-
so you think someone can walk into a hospital without insurance and demand cancer treatment or demand a surgery, or some other treatment and the hospital just provides it?........then after the fact the hospital just sends the bill to the government?
a person who is in a hurt and needs immediate medical attention can...
you do know that dont you?
you do also know there are tax payer funded programs for ppl in your little scenario dont you?
-
a person who is in a hurt and needs immediate medical attention can...
you do know that dont you?
you do also know there are tax payer funded programs for ppl in your little scenario dont you?
I've already distinguished emergency medical care from ongoing care for chronic injury and illness
why can't you ever pay attention
now tell us how this mechanism of handing over the bill to the government works
Let's say I have cancer and need ongoing treatment or surgery, chemo, radiation, etc...
Do you think I can just show up at the hospital and demand treatment and the hospital will comply and then just send my bill of to the goverment for payment.
How does that work?
-
I've already distinguished emergency medical care from ongoing care for chronic injury and illness
why can't you ever pay attention
now tell us how this mechanism of handing over the bill to the government works
Let's say I have cancer and need ongoing treatment or surgery, chemo, radiation, etc...
Do you think I can just show up at the hospital and demand treatment and the hospital will comply and then just send my bill of to the goverment for payment.
How does that work?
well seeing as i originally was talking about emergencies, its you who cant pay attention brain child...
you can use govt funded programs that help ppl like that...
local example here in the houston area would be called a gold card...
dont be so stupid as to say that tax payer programs for ppl that dont have health insurance dont exist...
-
well seeing as i originally was talking about emergencies, its you who cant pay attention brain child...
you can use govt funded programs that help ppl like that...
local example here in the houston area would be called a gold card...
dont be so stupid as to say that tax payer programs for ppl that dont have health insurance dont exist...
no you didn't
when you introduced your moronic idea that if people can't pay it get's passed on the tax payer you never mentioned emergency care.
Go back and read my response and you'll see that as I was trying to unpack your absurd statement that I was the one who brought up emergency care
thats the way the system works now dumb ass...if ppl cant pay it gets passed on to the tax payer...THATS THE REASON FOR THE MANDATE YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!if you force ppl to pay for their medical expenses if they CHOOSE to not carry health insurance...THEIR IS NO NEED FOR A MANDATE!!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS???
When you've been bitching about "choice" I've been saying I'm fine giving you a one time choice to opt in our out. If you opt out then you're on your own. You can buy private insurance or pay all medical expenses out of pocket but you never get a chance to get back into the system. This way you can't harm the system by trying to get back in once you're sick
[/quote
LMFAO, goodness gracious bro youre really retarded...
the system thats being set up is still private...youre still buying private insurance whether youre in the system or not...do you not understand that?
LOL goodness gracious
dude thats the reason behind health care reform...
its b/c of the cost of health care on the govt....
right now the bills of ppl that dont pay get passed on to the govt...thats why the govt wants to mandate everyone have insurance...so that they wont have to pay for those bills...
if you simply pass legislation that requires ppl to pay for their health care if they CHOOSE to not carry insurance...there is no need for a mandate...
how can that be the reason when it doesn't even make any sense
completely untrue
people without insurance dont' pass the bill to the governement
what they do instead is that they get no health care at all and they stay chronically sick or injured and eventually die earlier than they would have if they had health insurance
some people evenntually go to the emergency room so maybe that's what you're talking about but you don't get treatment for ongoing chronic conditions at the emergency room and you certainly don't get preventative care, exams, etc... A
the mandate is a tiny part of the legiislation and it's necessary or the mechanism of insurance will cease to function because millions of people will choose to not pay for health insurance and once they become sick or injured, and unable to get private insurance then they will come with hat in hand to the public program. It would be the same as not having auto insurance and then getting in a wreck and demanding access to a governemnt plan.
Isn't the requireement of the mandate the lack of "choice" you've been bitching and moaning about?
-
no you didn't
when you introduced your moronic idea that if people can't pay it get's passed on the tax payer you never mentioned emergency care.
Go back and read my response and you'll see that as I was trying to unpack your absurd statement that I was the one who brought up emergency care
LOL i never mentioned routine check ups or continuing medical procedures either brain child
-
LOL i never mentioned routine check ups or continuing medical procedures either brain child
I know
you never mentioned anything specific at all
you just made this blanket and demonstrably false statement:
right now the bills of ppl that dont pay get passed on to the govt...thats why the govt wants to mandate everyone have insurance...so that they wont have to pay for those bills....
I still have no clue what you're talking about in the next sentence
people without health insurance have no other choice except to pay their own expenses
wtf are you even talking about in this sentence?
the mandate is so they can't game the system by avoiding insurance until they are sick
after 5 pages you still seem utterly clueless about this
if you simply pass legislation that requires ppl to pay for their health care if they CHOOSE to not carry insurance...there is no need for a mandate...
-
I know
you never mentioned anything specific at all
you just made this blanket and demonstrably false statement:
I still have no clue what you're talking about in the next sentence
people without health insurance have no other choice except to pay their own expenses
wtf are you even talking about in this sentence?
the mandate is so they can't game the system by avoiding insurance until they are sick
after 5 pages you still seem utterly clueless about this
LOL they cant do that now...
you still havent said how this bill will help the deficit as obama has said it will...
-
Regardless of their justification straw - its still grossly overreaxhing constituionally.
-
LOL they cant do that now...
can't do what now?
I assume you mean they (people without insurance) can't have access to health care unless they pay for it out of their own pocket and they can't "pass the bill" on to the government
is that what you mean because if so, it would be contrary to what you've said in this entire thread
you still havent said how this bill will help the deficit as obama has said it will...
there are plenty of projections by the CBO on how it would reduce the deficit and also that repeal would increase the deficit
I'd post them but would you even bother to read them or even better would you even understand them?
i'm doubtful that you would understand them given the fact that you think people can just get whatever health care they want and pass the bill on to the government or that we need to pass a law requiring people without insurance to just pay their bills