- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
just saw this. can't find any details yet though. I think it's the mandate that eh ruled unconstitutional.
Exactly but that will destroy the entire law. Without the individual mandate the bill dies under its own weight and cannot be funded.
This is great news for the people on many levels and also for the economy.
Yes, those children with preexisting conditions and cancer patients who've been dropped from their health care will be thrilled.
Exactly but that will destroy the entire law.
Conservative said:Without the individual mandate the bill dies under its own weight and cannot be funded.
This was not a surprise. It'll be appealed.
Nope. It just means that people will be able to game the system and it will destroy the entire private insurance sector. That's A-OK with me.
Huh? Funding? The individual mandate has nothing to do with how the bill is funded. I don't think you understand the arguments why it was included in the first place. Makes it rather difficult to rebut you...
You are kidding, right? People forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine is all about funding. Without the massive increase in the pool this bill cannot be funded.
You are kidding, right? People forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine is all about funding. Without the massive increase in the pool this bill cannot be funded.
Let's hope a REAL change to health care can begin - such as purchasing healthcare across state lines and tort reform. Both of which will do more for people than almost anything in the current abortion of a bill.
Perhaps you should figure out the actual arguments in favor of the mandate before you hoot and holler in opposition. If you don't even understand the arguments in favor of the mandate, then you can't show us dummies where we're wrong.
I'll help you out: The individual mandate was included because preexisting conditions were being banned, in order to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to sign up for health insurance, thus driving health care costs out of control until no one signed up and the health insurance companies were bankrupted. It has absolutely nothing to do with government funding; the funding is generated through tax increases and Medicare cuts. The amount of revenue that would be generated from these fines is a pittance. You could take those fines and set the money on fire, and it wouldn't make much difference. :roll:
We're just talking past each other though. You clearly don't understand the contents of the law.
Perhaps you should figure out the actual arguments in favor of the mandate before you hoot and holler in opposition. If you don't even understand the arguments in favor of the mandate, then you can't show us dummies where we're wrong.
I'll help you out: The individual mandate was included because preexisting conditions were being banned, in order to prevent people from waiting until they get sick to sign up for health insurance, thus driving health care costs out of control until no one signed up and the health insurance companies were bankrupted. It has absolutely nothing to do with government funding, and that was never even part of the discussion; the funding for the law is generated through tax increases and Medicare cuts. The amount of revenue that would be generated from these fines is a pittance. You could take those fines and set the money on fire, and it wouldn't make much difference. :roll:
We're just talking past each other though. You clearly don't understand the contents of the law.
Tax increases are part of the personal mandates in the form of penalities for not getting insurance
Yes, those children with preexisting conditions and cancer patients who've been dropped from their health care will be thrilled.
Glad you agree. Congratulations, you just undermined the entire conservative legal argument against the mandate. I'm sure that was a heartfelt matter of principle, and not because you don't even understand the issues being debated in the courts. You should be Obama's solicitor-general, since you're so adept at making his legal argument that the mandate is a tax by another name. :mrgreen:
“If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, and we would have a Constitution in name only,” Vinson, 70, wrote today.
Apparently you don't understand the issue as well as you claim. Although the authority to raise taxes in allowed under the 14th Amendment there is no such authority on personal responsibility issues and that is the point and why it will be judicated in the SC. You cannot force Americans to pay for a personal responsibility issue by taxing them.
Kandahar;1059256111]Yes you can. The child tax credit and the home mortgage deduction are long-standing examples of the government using the tax code to intrude in people's personal lives. No one in this case is disputing the power of government to tax people based on their personal decisions; the conservative argument against the mandate hinges on the dubious assumption that the individual mandate is NOT a tax, but is something rather different.
Now that you understand the issue, it's time for you to switch sides and swear up and down that the individual mandate is not a tax. Because you obviously truly believe that, and aren't just regurgitating (what you incorrectly thought were) conservative talking points. :mrgreen:
kandahar said:Yes you can. The child tax credit and the home mortgage deduction are long-standing examples of the government using the tax code to intrude in people's personal lives. No one in this case is disputing the power of government to tax people based on their personal decisions; the conservative argument against the mandate hinges on the dubious assumption that the individual mandate is NOT a tax, but is something rather different.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?