Go play sweetie. Grown-ups are trying to talk here.
I believe it would fail as well in the US Supreme Court. You can't make people buy insurance. You can't make a person buy anything unless they want to or need to utilize some other benefit. Obama was a fool to pass this nonsense.
While many (most?) states require auto insurance, I'm not aware of any that require homeowner's or flood insurance. Those are usually required by your mortgage company, as a condition for granting the loan. Similarly, banks and finance companies will generally require auto insurance with specific levels of coverage for car loans, even if the state does not.Yeah...you can't make people buy something.....like auto insurance, or homeowner's insurance, or flood insurance if their home is in a designated flood plane or...
I think that you get the picture.
Yeah...you can't make people buy something.....like auto insurance, or homeowner's insurance, or flood insurance if their home is in a designated flood plane or...
I think that you get the picture.
And thery accuse "liberal" judges of being activists.
Well I don't think the goal of our public policy should be to bankrupt the country. So tough cookies for all the people who can't pay for medical insurance?
Exactly. The mandate no more solves the problem of health insurance than a law requiring people to buy housing would solve homelessness.
Brilliant and yet simple enough for stupid people to understand... hopefully.
This comment should have ended the thread.
Except it's a false analogy. But it passes for brilliant thinking on the right.
It's not thinking from the right. It's a quote from Obama, cited on page 78 of the judge Vinson's decision:
"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that 'if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'"
Ouch. senseamp owned, yet again. LOL!
It just shows how much Democrats gave to try to compromise with Republicans. It was originally a Republican idea.
Wow. Senseamp has been totally destroyed in 3 threads today alone. Is that a record for libOwnage?
It just shows how much Democrats gave to try to compromise with Republicans. It was originally a Republican idea.
You pay for K-12 education, why not healthcare?
Do you really think someone should be exploiting someone's bad luck, e.g medical illness.
It's not thinking from the right. It's a quote from Obama, cited on page 78 of the judge Vinson's decision:
"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that 'if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'"
Don't worry, he'll either ignore or find some apologist opinion somewere and use it. He believes in government control by any means, so you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. No, let me clarify that. He believes in leftist control.
I want neither left or right using government sticking it's nose in except in a very limited sense, and failing to think through policy and consequences is not acceptable. It's not like we can fire government.
PeshakJang said:IMO:
1) Most K-12 education funding is (should be) through local/state taxes.
2) Nature of the systems doesn't allow for direct comparison. Education costs can be reasonably extrapolated over the education career of the student. Health insurance involves many variables, and is exponentially more complicated in determining how much somebody is going to cost/what might happen over the entire life of the individual.
3) Most comparisons of public education vs private education show that private education is of higher quality and at a lower cost-per-student in many cases.
PeshakJang said:1) Who is exploiting who? Fraud and abuse aside, and acknowledging that some reasonable reforms are needed in our current system, where is the exploitation?
2) Do you think someone should have to pay for someone else's bad luck? What about pay for some else's bad decisions?
Maybe you three should get a room for your senseamp "ownage" circle-jerk.
2 - Why? A basic education is, for all intents and purposes a human right. I see no difference why healthcare should be any different at all.
1 - Aside from the absolute costs of healthcare, there is abuse. I had an awful back as a child and my parents barley made ends meet as our premiums and deductibles were extraordinarily high not because a certain healthcare CEO wanted a yacht, because he wanted a bigger one.
2 - Why should I have to pay for some stupid kids education that's not a member of my family?
Why should a few hundred dollars of my taxes pay for someone's Medicare or retirement? If they're not smart enough to plan for retirement, that's not my problem. Right?
-snip-
To claim the law is unconstitutional is claiming the federal government doesn't have the authority to levy a new tax.
There can be a good argument for a conclusion that agrees with radical rightists, and yet they make a bad argument for the same conclusion.
Let's say you think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional for one set of reasons - if a radical Justice rules it's unconstitutional because it 'violates the Christian faith this nation is founded on', it doesn't make his argument any less a radical subversion of the separation of Church and State, just because you have a far better argument.
What I'm saying is to keep separate the issues in the constitutionality of this issue, and the politics of the Justices who might rule for radical ideological agendas.
If a mainstream Justice and one of the four radical right-wing Justices both rule this is unconstitutional, the mainstream Justice will likely have better reasons.
It's possible to have the right vote for the wrong reasons.
In your response, you took my statement, the hypothetical that 'if the two both vote no, the mainstream will have better reasons', and you simply changed my assumptions - you put a better argument in the mouth of the right-wing justice as if they'll make it for no apparent reason assuming they will do so as if the fact a better argument exists means they'll use that one and not their radical ideology they've used for years, you switch the mainstream Justice from a no to a yes vote.
You seemed to do what I said not to, mixing up the issue - your your own arguments of what's right - with the politics of the Justices, putting your words in their mouths.
It's easy to do that - which is why I raised the issue how easy it is to mix them up.