Printable View
Doesn't change that the part being deemed unconstitutional was a Republican idea and one that Romney himself implemented in MA and also ran with during his presidential bid.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
It also doesn't surprise me that politicians in bed with insurance companies would vote against a financially competitive option. In the rest of the world this system is called "normal".
Wow, another great contribution to the world of straight razor shaving!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
First off health care is badly broken and needs fixing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
At the core this is a "tax" that imposes or requires all to be covered.
We use state and federal tax money now to provide care to a golly
large number of people now and for virtually all ALL retired
folk now. So to answer the question the laws that provide for federal taxes
open the door for this and a constitutional challenge will not stop it.
Back to "badly broken and needs fixing".
My brother and I decided that the big recent legislative actions in
the US have a lot in common with Christmas wish lists penned
by five and six year olds. These lists are gathered up by the teachers
bound in a folder handed to the principal bound into a bigger folder
with an address by a High School Valedictorian then gathered together
bound together into yet another monster binder presented to the
president for approval. Since he has a friend with a five year old
it is seen as marvelous and gets passed into law.
-- time to stop: such an important topic and such bad law -- Rant Averted.
:OT>>>>>>> ";"Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Glad to be of help, I just noticed that even after three months you have not lost the ability to make a shaving related post on a shaving forum!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Truly impressive, I had almost lost my hope and faith, but now I'm a believer again.
And as a firm believer in pavlovian conditioning:
88.9% is pretty straightforward: 4 yays, 4 nays, the remaining 11.1% is the curious part.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
I didn't know you would be checking up on my post total, and that there was an issue contributing to an old thread with a recent development. Praise God I'm back in the good graces. (sort of)Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Matt
From what I understand, the ability of Congress to address health care is not the issue. The problem is that congress does not have the constitutional authority to mandate that every citizen must purchase insurance or be fined by the IRS. The government is driving up insurance costs so high with its requirements on insurance companies and employers that it is cheaper to buy the government's medical plan (socialized plan); if any business were to try that I'm sure they would be hauled before Congress for violating anti trust laws.
My 2 cents:
As to the constitutionality question: the idea of requiring everyone to (financially) participate in the health care system seems to me to not be so much different from the government's requirement that everyone is required to pay taxes, pay into social security, etc. You can't opt out of social security (some minor, self-funding exceptions nothwithstanding) yet you might want to fund your own retirement if you had the option to do so. But you don't, yet that is not assailed as being violative of the constitution. I am forced to pay taxes to send my neighbor's children to school-is that unconstitutional as well if I have no children of my own?
Also, as to the idea that it's unconstitutional to require everyone to participate in the health care system: everyone does in fact "participate" in the system. At some point in our lives, virtually all of us receive medical attention. Even if you wanted to be personally responsible for your own medical bills and therefore didn't want to be forced to purchase health insurance, unless you are a multi-millionaire, very, very few of us could afford to pay the actual medical costs for such things as catastrophic injuries that may occur thru no fault of your own, or for the type of disease diagnosis and treatment care that everyone now receives (MRI's, chemo, surgery, etc.). So if someone who makes a 6 figure income and who decides not to obtain health care insurance is severely injured in a car accident or comes down with a horrible disease, they will not be able to cover their own medical care. Since we are virtually all "in the same boat" in this regard, unless you're willing to forgo receiving medical treatment when you suffer a heart attack or are diagnosed with lymphoma, you're going to access the health care system.
Bottom line is, Americans pay twice as much on average for health care with poorer medical outcomes than the rest of the civilized world. This is an especially tough pill to swallow in todays economy. The previous system was an abomination created by incompetent politicians influenced by intense lobbying of various medical entities. The reform while not perfect, at least attempted to address some of the affordability/quality issues, of our for profit system. Instead of wasting so much time and effort worrying about the highly debatable constitutionality of the current reform, i would love for the opposing politicians to actually come up with, and present their own workable reform plan. After all, isn't that what we actually elect them to office for? I don't think most Americans care much about which party scores the most brownie points for coming up with the definitive plan, we just want an affordable system that works. Maybe tune out the lobbyists a little bit. I'm all ears, but i've yet to hear anything differing much from the previous unworkable mess.
You be listening a very long time. They had ample opportunity in the past. If they were to succeed in eliminating the current law they would appoint a committee and study it to death for years until the whole thing quietly faded away.Quote:
Originally Posted by TopCat