Can't make us buy HC Insurance

[Tom]

Court decision today - Congress does NOT have the authority to firce us to buy insurance under the commerce clause.

Round 1 - American people :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Boy, I'd like to dig up a few old threads now.

:jump: :jump:

[lamboguy]

does this mean that i am going to get my $3000 penalty i got from the romney deal last year for not having prescription dope insurance?

this might be good news for me

[bigmack]

Nance & jognlope ain't gonna like this one bit.

http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/images/2007/04/03/nancy_pelosi.jpg

[boxcar]

Court decision today - Congress does NOT have the authority to firce us to buy insurance under the commerce clause.

Round 1 - American people :ThmbUp:

Without doubt, this will go to the SC. Then it becomes a crap shoot.

As Rush correctly pointed out, this all goes to show just how ideologically-biased the courts are. I think there have been decisions by liberal activist judges who favor legislating from the bench and they, of course, have come down in favor of ObminationCare. Now, this conservative judge, who is a constitutionalist and strict interpreter of law, comes down against the same bill.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Court decision today - Congress does NOT have the authority to firce us to buy insurance under the commerce clause.

Round 1 - American people :ThmbUp:
A different federal judge in Virginia and one in Michigan have ruled that it is constitutional. In addition a number of suits seeking to overturn that portion of the Affordable Health Care Act have been dismissed on other grounds.
A long way to go before we have a final decision on this. Don't forget this peovision does not go into effect until 2014.

[boxcar]

A different federal judge in Virginia and one in Michigan have ruled that it is constitutional. In addition a number of suits seeking to overturn that portion of the Affordable Health Care Act have been dismissed on other grounds.
A long way to go before we have a final decision on this. Don't forget this peovision does not go into effect until 2014.

But funding those "freebies" begins soon, which is why the House must move sooner than immediately to set the wheels in motion for repeal, as symbolic as that will be. But the timing would be politically important.

Boxcar

[Spiderman]

Section 1501, mandating a "penalty" for not purchasing health care, was severed from the health care bill. Opponents to health care reform shopped for and found the right judge.

The Public Option, which was not fought for by Obama, would have negated today's Virginia court decision. The ruling is an injunction for an enactment that will not begin until 2013. Though, the make-up of the incoming congress will likely not consider a health care plan.

Without Public Option, Health Care Reform will be difficult to achieve. There are good reasons to reduce the costs of health care and provide children and people with pre-existing conditions with medical treatment.

[ArlJim78]

It was a penalty but they removed it and now try to claim it's a tax. just another shell game.

the first order of business in the new congress will be a repeal and replace healthcare measure. keeping what's already in place and replacing the stuff that occurs down the road with something that isn't quite so insane.

[Ocala Mike]

What Spiderman said.

Health care reform should not be about health care insurance anyway. A finding that the mandate to purchase it is unconstitutional may actually bring us closer to universal health care for all, the gold standard in almost every other industrialized nation on earth.


Ocala Mike

[bigmack]

APUhVXImUhc

[boxcar]

What Spiderman said.

Health care reform should not be about health care insurance anyway. A finding that the mandate to purchase it is unconstitutional may actually bring us closer to universal health care for all, the gold standard in almost every other industrialized nation on earth.


Ocala Mike

What until "every other industrialized nation on earth" discovers the standard to have been fools' gold.

Boxcar

[slewis]

What I ask, not being an attorney, is why should I be forced to buy Car insurance either? Is it because I'm putting others at risk if I hit them and I would be liable?
If so, the argument can be (and will be in some facimile) made that someone forced to go to the ER for emergency care who cant afford it is a financial burden to the people of the US. Just like the auto accident, there is financial liability. In the case of health care, that burden is placed upon the taxpayers as whole.

If I cant be forced to have health insurance, they cant force auto insurance.

Where, in turn, society runs the risk of having every 17 yr old with a license who would normally go into assigned risk and pay very high premiums, driving without insurance altogether.

He run a stop sign, hits your car, and now what?

There is a lot to debate here.

[DJofSD]

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

[boxcar]

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

Exactly right! Very well stated! :ThmbUp:

Being born ("alive" as you put) is not OUR choice. It's the choice of our sovereign Creator. Since we don't have a right to be alive (born), then neither do we have any right to acquire those things necessary to sustain life.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

I think the individual mandate is the same as the over 65 being forced to pay each month for Medicare, and up until in their paychecks, because like the over 65, the under 65 already use the system. But it could be more reasonable, like make the mandate for catastrophic only, with primary care centers getting tax breaks to be set up for the regular care. Or would it be 6 in one, half a dozen the other, might as well have individual mandate be for the complete insurance policy, rather than set up primary care centers at cost.

[boxcar]

I think the individual mandate is the same as the over 65 being forced to pay each month for Medicare, and up until in their paychecks, because like the over 65, the under 65 already use the system. But it could be more reasonable, like make the mandate for catastrophic only, with primary care centers getting tax breaks to be set up for the regular care. Or would it be 6 in one, half a dozen the other, might as well have individual mandate be for the complete insurance policy, rather than set up primary care centers at cost.

No, seasoned citizens are not forced to buy any part of Medicare. It's left up to each individual's choice. Part A, by the way, is part of the SS packagel. That's a "freebie".

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

What I ask, not being an attorney, is why should I be forced to buy Car insurance either? Is it because I'm putting others at risk if I hit them and I would be liable?
If so, the argument can be (and will be in some facimile) made that someone forced to go to the ER for emergency care who cant afford it is a financial burden to the people of the US. Just like the auto accident, there is financial liability. In the case of health care, that burden is placed upon the taxpayers as whole.

If I cant be forced to have health insurance, they cant force auto insurance.

Where, in turn, society runs the risk of having every 17 yr old with a license who would normally go into assigned risk and pay very high premiums, driving without insurance altogether.

He run a stop sign, hits your car, and now what?

There is a lot to debate here.this health insurance is already going on in mass. i understand the concept behind it even though i don't agree with it. but i don't carry prescription drug care because i will never shove one of those bad drugs in my body. i rather die. yet because i don't pay for prescription drug care i got hit with a $3000 penalty. i want someone to explain to me how that extracts money out of other peoples pockets if i won't take the drugs. if i walk into a pharmacy with a prescription to be filled and i don't have insurance or money to pay for the drugs the guys in the white coats in the CVS will tell me to take a hike.

[slewis]

this health insurance is already going on in mass. i understand the concept behind it even though i don't agree with it. but i don't carry prescription drug care because i will never shove one of those bad drugs in my body. i rather die. yet because i don't pay for prescription drug care i got hit with a $3000 penalty. i want someone to explain to me how that extracts money out of other peoples pockets if i won't take the drugs. if i walk into a pharmacy with a prescription to be filled and i don't have insurance or money to pay for the drugs the guys in the white coats in the CVS will tell me to take a hike.

Maybe the theory Lambo is the same as someone who expects not to have to pay that portion of property tax that's used to fund education if he or she has no children.

Health care debate aside, if it's for the whole of society, the courts will probably rule the tax legal.

[lamboguy]

the city, town or municipality deeded out the land in THEIR jurisdictions. this is where the difference lies, they don't own or never have owned my body or my mother's body. i have no problem paying my overpriced real estate taxes to the town i live in because i knew it was my duty to pay it before i bought my house. if i didn't want to pay them, i didn't have to buy the house. i have been walking around without prescription drug care for 60 years now. after 60 years someone decides that i need it now. i am penalized for my refusal to carry prescription drug care.

i am not against someone getting medical attention, even though i think these doctor's do more harm than good these days. god forbid the government teaches people how to take care of themselves so they don't need as much rotten medical attention. these healthcare deals in mass. that a consevetive republican happened to have rammed down our throats does nothing but make doctor's, hostpitals, insurance company's and drug company's keep up their second homes in martha's vinyard or the hampton's at the expense of the citizens of this country.

[boxcar]

Maybe the theory Lambo is the same as someone who expects not to have to pay that portion of property tax that's used to fund education if he or she has no children.

Health care debate aside, if it's for the whole of society, the courts will probably rule the tax legal.

I never agreed with that ripoff either. Why should I become a surrogate parent and help pick up the tab to pay for someone else's kid? You see, once you go down this collectivism path, it can only lead one to the end of a steep cliff. Why shouldn't property owners also pay for the day care center's tab for working parents' kids, too? That, too, would benefit society. Or why shouldn't property owners pick up the tab for school clothing for parents' kids?

HCAP thinks that we all have some kind of civil or human right to essentially all the necessities in life, too, such as food, shelter and clothing. What happens when more and more people start asking, "Why am I working for me and someone else, too?", and wants to get on the gravy train of freebies? Very slippery slope this socialism thingy. Ask the students in the UK who are having cows because the government told them their tuition is going to be tripled. I guess they think they have a right to free or dirt cheap education.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

I'm glad to know (med. part B only deducted from soc. security check).

[jognlope]

I wish more of this would happen: "If you want a CT scan tonight, it'll be $1,300." just happened to type that in a report. But still ct scans are being done as "renal stone protocol" in the ER if the patient complaints of flank pain. Isn't there some way to tell if a person has a stone without a ct scan?

[witchdoctor]

I wish more of this would happen: "If you want a CT scan tonight, it'll be $1,300." just happened to type that in a report. But still ct scans are being done as "renal stone protocol" in the ER if the patient complaints of flank pain. Isn't there some way to tell if a person has a stone without a ct scan?

Finding a renal stone is easy with an IVP. The problem arises in that an aneurysm can often present like a renal stone. If you miss an aneurysm , then be set to be sued. This is what is called defensive medicine.

[jognlope]

Oh right. Ugh. And dont' leave it to PAs to go against the grain, who order them faster than a big Mac.

[bigmack]

Isn't there some way to tell if a person has a stone without a ct scan?
Localize HC costs. Have a bake sale or sell tickets for people to watch a bird talk. Gather a cool mil to buy a CT machine. Then anyone who contributed can have FREE CT scans anytime they wish. :ThmbUp:

The hypochondriacs in the bunch will drop like flies from radiation of having weekly scans. The 'devil may cares' will live life today and give little thought to dropping but they'll drop nonetheless. :ThmbDown:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/business/29scan.html

[jognlope]

Thanks for the article, will read again later, only got to page 3, living on rye bread today, which is not a bad bread to live on with a little raspberry jam.

[DJofSD]

Today's ruling in the VA district court. (http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf)

[boxcar]

I'm glad to know (med. part B only deducted from soc. security check).

But only if the SS recipient CHOOSES to go with B. Part B ISN'T forced upon the recipient. Big dif.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.
Owning an automobile and driving is not mandatory; there is no law requiring you to do either. But, it's not optional either for many people. We have a fairly extensive public transit system in the Chicago area. Yet, if I wanted to take public transit to work (before I retired) I would have to take three different buses. What took me twenty minutes in my car would take me almost two hours by bus. Or I could take a cab and spend $50 a day. Driving and owning a car is necesary in many cases, even if not mandatory.
Being alive is not mandatory just because you have no choice in the matter. No one outside your self requires you to be alive.

[bigmack]

Owning an automobile and driving is not mandatory; there is no law requiring you to do either. But, it's not optional either for many people. We have a fairly extensive public transit system in the Chicago area. Yet, if I wanted to take public transit to work (before I retired) I would have to take three different buses. What took me twenty minutes in my car would take me almost two hours by bus. Or I could take a cab and spend $50 a day. Driving and owning a car is necesary in many cases, even if not mandatory.
Being alive is not mandatory just because you have no choice in the matter. No one outside your self requires you to be alive.
What a single focused mind you have.

OK. Your name is Herb, you live in a one horse town in Montana. Now what?

You breathe & are on the books with the Feds - You pay. Like it or not.

[HUSKER55]

I think the point everyone is missing is that if everyone has to pay then the premiums will go down.

For example, here in wisconsin the state went to mandatory car insurance and the premiums dropped about 25%. (on mine) I am assuming health care policies would do the same

I think the main problem is improper funding of social security and health care. I really believe a national sales tax and mandatory payment into helath care would drive cost down for everyone.
Problem: No way to police the people running it.

problem: too many people getting benefits that never paid into it.

If BO could solve them two then I think it would fly.

JMHO

[mostpost]

Henry Hudson, the judge who issued this ruling has financial ties to the Virginia Attorney General who brought the suit and to a Republican online communications firm which fought passage of the health care bill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html
excerpt:
From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser toformer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.

Shouldn't Hudson have recused himself?

[slewis]

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

Hang on DJ.

The argument here is whether Government can constitutionally mandate the purchase of insurance.

The mandate is for protection , in both the automobile, and the health care argument. My argument in court would state that the goal of the mandate of insurance IN BOTH CASES is FINANCIAL, since we have a policy in the USA of offering emergency medical treatment (and even non emergency if you cant really afford it).
When you require drivers to have auto insurance, you are protecting other drivers, pedestrians and property against accident,(and the driver and passengers as well) all of which, the financial burden would revert to the victim(s) if the driver was not insured.

In the case of Health Care, the financial burden is placed upon the TAXPAYERS if the non insured needs treatment or emergency care.

I would argue that the issue of choice to drive is irrelevant in this comparison.

[JustRalph]

Shouldn't Hudson have recused himself?

Why? Nobody called for it. And it's because they all know that he is step one in a multi-layered process. If the Supremes don't take this direct, it will be 2-4 more decisions and 2 years before it gets to them. Everybody knows that and nobody cared. They just want to get the ball rolling.

[bigmack]

I would argue that the issue of choice to drive is irrelevant in this comparison.
I can appreciate your want to kick around a subject but this one is undeserving of your time.

It's true that most states require drivers to carry auto insurance. And it's equally true that the administration wants a federal law that will require individuals and employers to buy health insurance.
But the similarities end there.
Now critics are starting to urge the administration to use a different, more representative comparison to justify a virtually unprecedented federal mandate.
"It doesn't make sense," Robert Gordon, senior vice president for policy development and research at The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said of the analogy, noting several inconsistencies in the comparison.
First, the auto insurance mandate is easily avoidable. If you don't want to pay, don't drive a car.
Don't want to pay for health insurance? Drop dead.
"You can avoid the auto insurance mandate by divesting yourself of a car. The only way to avoid a health insurance mandate is by divesting yourself of a body," said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover other people and other cars they may damage. Covering damage to their own cars is of secondary importance.
Many drivers can go without collision insurance if they like. If a hood is dented on the car of someone without the coverage, that person can drive around with a dented hood. But the only kind of health insurance Obama is talking about is collision insurance. If someone's body is a jalopy, he or she still has to get covered.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/14/health-insurance-mandate-works-like-auto-insurance-think/

[DJofSD]

I think the point everyone is missing is that if everyone has to pay then the premiums will go down.


I think the experiences of both New York and New Jersey prove otherwise.

[lamboguy]

I think the point everyone is missing is that if everyone has to pay then the premiums will go down.

For example, here in wisconsin the state went to mandatory car insurance and the premiums dropped about 25%. (on mine) I am assuming health care policies would do the same

I think the main problem is improper funding of social security and health care. I really believe a national sales tax and mandatory payment into helath care would drive cost down for everyone.
Problem: No way to police the people running it.

problem: too many people getting benefits that never paid into it.

If BO could solve them two then I think it would fly.

JMHO
the main function of an insurance company or any financial institution is to take the most amount of money away from the most amount of people in the shortest possible amount of time.

[lsbets]

Hang on DJ.

The argument here is whether Government can constitutionally mandate the purchase of insurance.

The mandate is for protection , in both the automobile, and the health care argument. My argument in court would state that the goal of the mandate of insurance IN BOTH CASES is FINANCIAL, since we have a policy in the USA of offering emergency medical treatment (and even non emergency if you cant really afford it).
When you require drivers to have auto insurance, you are protecting other drivers, pedestrians and property against accident,(and the driver and passengers as well) all of which, the financial burden would revert to the victim(s) if the driver was not insured.

In the case of Health Care, the financial burden is placed upon the TAXPAYERS if the non insured needs treatment or emergency care.

I would argue that the issue of choice to drive is irrelevant in this comparison.

The federal government does not mandate that an individual purchase insurance to drive. The states do, so that has nothing to do with whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate that people purchase health insurance. I'm surprised someone who considers himself as bright as you do can't see that obvious and basic distinction. Its the same with the Mass law. That is a state mandate, not a federal one. The issue with Obamacare is whether the federal government can mandate that individuals be forced to engage in an economic activity regardless of whether or not they would otherwise engage in that activity. The mandate is a gigantic expansion of federal powers.

[slewis]

The federal government does not mandate that an individual purchase insurance to drive. The states do, so that has nothing to do with whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate that people purchase health insurance. I'm surprised someone who considers himself as bright as you do can't see that obvious and basic distinction. Its the same with the Mass law. That is a state mandate, not a federal one. The issue with Obamacare is whether the federal government can mandate that individuals be forced to engage in an economic activity regardless of whether or not they would otherwise engage in that activity. The mandate is a gigantic expansion of federal powers.

Trust me, I know precisely who regulates auto insurance and knew of the difference before you made this point.

Now do you think that state(s) rules and regulations and requirements are immune from constitutionality?

GIGANTIC expansion of FEDERAL POWER? You mean a law that prevents someone who WONT BUY INSURANCE from FORCING their financial burden, should they become ill, upon society as a whole?

Until they change the law that hospitals are legally allowed to "kick the uninsured to the curb" and doctors CAN refuse to treat anyone who cant pay, I want GIGANTIC FEDERAL POWER to legislate for ALL the people.

And keep the "smart" ass comments to yourself, tough guy.

[lsbets]

Trust me, I know precisely who regulates auto insurance and knew of the difference before you made this point.

Now do you think that state(s) rules and regulations and requirements are immune from constitutionality?

GIGANTIC expansion of FEDERAL POWER? You mean a law that prevents someone who WONT BUY INSURANCE from FORCING their financial burden, should they become ill, upon society as a whole?

Until they change the law that hospitals are legally allowed to "kick the uninsured to the curb" and doctors CAN refuse to treat anyone who cant pay, I want GIGANTIC FEDERAL POWER to legislate for ALL the people.

And keep the "smart" ass comments to yourself, tough guy.

It is obvious you don't understand the difference between federal and state powers. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting the states from passing any kind of insurance mandate. Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule the mandate unconstitutional, there is a way provided to make it constitutional - pass an amendment to the constitution. We've done it before when the people wanted to grant powers to the federal government that didn't fit the bounds of the constitution.

As far as the smart comments tough guy, you like to cast yourself as the smartest kid and the toughest kid on the block, and its pretty obvious you are neither, especially the latter. I would say its a safe bet that when face to face with someone who understands what toughness is you are meek as a mouse.

[slewis]

It is obvious you don't understand the difference between federal and state powers. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting the states from passing any kind of insurance mandate. Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule the mandate unconstitutional, there is a way provided to make it constitutional - pass an amendment to the constitution. We've done it before when the people wanted to grant powers to the federal government that didn't fit the bounds of the constitution.

As far as the smart comments tough guy, you like to cast yourself as the smartest kid and the toughest kid on the block, and its pretty obvious you are neither, especially the latter. I would say its a safe bet that when face to face with someone who understands what toughness is you are meek as a mouse.

Unlike a little cnt like you, I dont hide, never have,never will, behind the safety and anonymity of my keyboard. Many people on this PA have met and know me.
I can be located each and every racing day for anyone that wants to tap me on the shoulder and tell me their going to kick my ass.

So how ya left?

[boxcar]

Owning an automobile and driving is not mandatory; there is no law requiring you to do either. But, it's not optional either for many people.

When we take this bit of sophistry to its logical conclusion and use personal situations as a mandate excuse, we could escape out from under an awful of personal responsibility, couldn't we? We could also use your foolish argument to make just about anything mandatory due to personal situations, such as Part B insurance under Medicare. :rolleyes: Just because we will invariably encounter very tough choices or options in life, doesn't mean we haven't any choices. Having no choice is when someone external to us essentially tells us we have no choices, i.e. you MUST do this, or you MUST do that, or you MUST do something else.

In your transportation analogy, if public transportation doesn't serve a person's needs for whatever reason, then that person has all kinds of wheels' options open to him. Besides autos there are bicycles, tricycles, scooters, motorcycles, golf carts, skateboards, etc. If he doesn't want to pay insurance or can't afford insurance, he might want to scratch off the autos option and consider one of the others. The fact that he may not care much for the remaining options doesn't = no choices. :rolleyes:

And do you really want to use the inane necessities argument? You have no idea where I could take you if you want to go down that dead end road, especially because how it dead ends. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Unlike a little cnt like you, I dont hide, never have,never will, behind the safety and anonymity of my keyboard. Many people on this PA have met and know me.
I can be located each and every racing day for anyone that wants to tap me on the shoulder and tell me their going to kick my ass.

So how ya left?

Uh, oh... do I detect another flare of anti-social behavior coming on? :D

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Unlike a little cnt like you, I dont hide, never have,never will, behind the safety and anonymity of my keyboard. Many people on this PA have met and know me.
I can be located each and every racing day for anyone that wants to tap me on the shoulder and tell me their going to kick my ass.

So how ya left?

Hide behind anonymity? You really are not bright at all are you? I'm an easy guy to find, hell look at the board archives and you'll even get my address, along with some video and a newspaper article that discusses my background. I've had the pleasure of several board members dropping in unexpectedly to say hi. You are making yourself look like more of a fool than usual. Your chest thumping is laughable. It is a foregone conclusion that the dumbest, and possibly last thing, you would ever do is go toe to toe with me. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. You'd crawl back under some rock where you can keep pretending to be a tough guy.

[slewis]

Hide behind anonymity? You really are not bright at all are you? I'm an easy guy to find, hell look at the board archives and you'll even get my address, along with some video and a newspaper article that discusses my background. I've had the pleasure of several board members dropping in unexpectedly to say hi. You are making yourself look like more of a fool than usual. Your chest thumping is laughable. It is a foregone conclusion that the dumbest, and possibly last thing, you would ever do is go toe to toe with me. But I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. You'd crawl back under some rock where you can keep pretending to be a tough guy.


Like I said...a little cnt.... How ya left?

[johnhannibalsmith]

....
You mean a law that prevents someone who WONT BUY INSURANCE from FORCING their financial burden, should they become ill, upon society as a whole?...

It's a really, really weak, cavalier attitude to assume and then pronounce that people that refuse to enable the actual problem with the broken health system are themselves the problem.

[lsbets]

Like I said...a little cnt.... How ya left?

Come on down tough guy, lets see how long you'd last with me. It'd be a long flight for the worst minute of your life. Stop with all the tough talk, you know who I am and where to find me, time to put up or shut up. But, we both know you're all talk and too chickenshit to back up your false bravado. I bet my 6 year old daughter is a hell of a lot tougher than you.

[boxcar]

Come on down tough guy, lets see how long you'd last with me. It'd be a long flight for the worst minute of your life. Stop with all the tough talk, you know who I am and where to find me, time to put up or shut up. But, we both know you're all talk and too chickenshit to back up your false bravado. I bet my 6 year old daughter is a hell of a lot tougher than you.

Hey, SL, in the interest of full disclosure and just to keep everything above board and fair and balanced, I must reveal what LS didn't: His little sweetheart is a red belt in karate. :D :D

Carry on...

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Hey, SL, in the interest of full disclosure and just to keep everything above board and fair and balanced, I must reveal what LS didn't: His little sweetheart is a red belt in karate. :D :D

Carry on...

Boxcar

Nope, she's a gymnast. Tough as nails, isn't scared of anything. From the first day she stood out over the other girls, so now she's going to the best gym in the country. Its an amazing place, and great for her. As long as she loves it, I'll keep laying out the cash for her, but anyone who's been around here a while knows the circumstances she was born under and why she is so special to me.

[boxcar]

Nope, she's a gymnast. Tough as nails, isn't scared of anything. From the first day she stood out over the other girls, so now she's going to the best gym in the country. Its an amazing place, and great for her. As long as she loves it, I'll keep laying out the cash for her, but anyone who's been around here a while knows the circumstances she was born under and why she is so special to me.

Okay...then "tough as nails" should work. :D

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey, slewis + lsbets...I like watching a throw down as much as anyone, but I must try and pour some cold water on this little fracas....

And I have to say, this is a little out of character for lsbets...as for slewis, par for the course... :lol:

[lsbets]

Hey, slewis + lsbets...I like watching a throw down as much as anyone, but I must try and pour some cold water on this little fracas....

And I have to say, this is a little out of character for lsbets...as for slewis, par for the course... :lol:

Okay PA. But not out of character at all for me. Think about it. Most of my travels have involved confronting faux tough guys and bullies. That's all slewis is - a faux tough guy and bully. You know full well how things would end for him if he had the balls he claims he does. The jackass needed to be brought down a notch after he couldn't handle the fact that he doesn't understand basic civics vis a vis our federalist system. Every thread he jumps into is the same, well he knows where to find me, I'll welcome him and send him home real quick.

[jognlope]

But putting this: :lol: kind of stings at end of a comment exluding someone.

[ceejay]

The way I see it this is a law that says "do the right thing and purchase health insurance or pay a tax." If you do not have insurance and have a medical calamity (unless you're rich enough to write a 6-figure check) you will likely be forced to declare bankruptcy, thereby stiffing the doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc. that saved your life. It won't be any fun for you either, probably losing all or most of your assets.

The USA has a long history of using the tax code as a social engineering tool. Examples:
Mortgage interest deduction
Pre-Tax payment of employer-based health insurance
Reagan-era increase in personal exemption for children
Cash for Clunkers

[boxcar]

The way I see it this is a law that says "do the right thing and purchase health insurance or pay a tax." If you do not have insurance and have a medical calamity (unless you're rich enough to write a 6-figure check) you will likely be forced to declare bankruptcy, thereby stiffing the doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc. that saved your life. It won't be any fun for you either, probably losing all or most of your assets.

The USA has a long history of using the tax code as a social engineering tool. Examples:
Mortgage interest deduction
Pre-Tax payment of employer-based health insurance
Reagan-era increase in personal exemption for children
Cash for Clunkers

Yo, Ceejay, this is what Medicare is for. It's basically designed to give rationed (emergency) care to the poor.

Boxcar

[ceejay]

Medicare is not designed for the middle income non-disabled person under 65 years old. You know that.

Medicaid is for the impoverished. Not for the person who simply chooses to be uninsured.

[lamboguy]

there are always hard core reasons why a law gets passed to begin with when something has been working well for a long time. i can only speak for the state of mass because this health insurance is already taking place here. the deal here is that an insurance company cannot turn you down for a pre-existing condition. of course to be able to offer this the premiums on everyone has to rise. at the same time the hospitals and doctors charges have increased as well. the people that were behind this bill were the hospitals and insurance company's to begin with. those guys are never going to lose a dime because they pass the cost onto the patients in the form of higher charges and rates. a single person can get a health insurance policy that doesn't have the highest deductable for about $850 per month. if they want one with a high deductable that pays virtually nothing it cost $450 per month. since there is no pre-existing condition exemptions here you can take out the best insurance when you know you are going to need it, after you are done visiting your doctors you can drop it and just pay the penalty for not having insurance to the state. that would cost you $250 per month that you don't have the insurance. so what is happening here is alot of people are chosing to insure themselves in that manor. what these doctors and hospitals charge is crazy to begin with. to give you an idea, 2 tylenol gets you billed $9.00 these days. a 3 minute appointment with a specialists in a hospital gets you billed $450. a prostate examination and psa test runs about $500. everyone here always complains about track takeout, this is worse. if you can overcome this takeout in medical care, you can win at horseracing no sweat.

[boxcar]

Medicare is not designed for the middle income non-disabled person under 65 years old. You know that.

Medicaid is for the impoverished. Not for the person who simply chooses to be uninsured.

And your point is...if someone chooses to be uninsured, why should he receive care at all?

If someone chooses to not buy an automobile because he doesn't want to part with his money, does that give him some right to march into the showroom and simply drive out with one, expecting that someone else will pick up his tab?

Boxcar

[ceejay]

And your point is...if someone chooses to be uninsured, why should he receive care at all?
My point is that if somebody chooses to attempt to freeload off the health care system and be uninsured that the government has the power to levy a tax on this freeloader. I say a substantial tax. The power is granted under article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution in the "general welfare" clause(Along with the commerce clause IMO).

[boxcar]

My point is that if somebody chooses to attempt to freeload off the health care system and be uninsured that the government has the power to levy a tax on this freeloader. I say a substantial tax. The power is granted under article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution in the "general welfare" clause(Along with the commerce clause IMO).

A tax for merely living and breathing and making a free will choice? Forget the punitive tax. Wanna-be freeloaders should not receive any care. They should be allowed to reap what they have sown. I know it's difficult to do for some, but we really need to move away from using the tax system to punish people, which primarily the current progressive system does.

Boxcar

[skate]

Boy, I'd like to dig up a few old threads now.

:jump: :jump:

hey, good idea, we can just bury them with all dem holes

[skate]

i heard the exemptions are over 200, those 200 are from the bigger companys, wonder how many people are left...what a joke.


hey, wait just a friggin minute, i might be the only one left paying for this mess, man i best start Voting.:rolleyes: