AcneVulgaris: hillbillypharmacist: Friskya: Just out of idle curiosity (serious question, folks), is there any activity Americans can refuse to participate in that Congress can't claim authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause?

No, there's not. It's simply a matter of whether the regulation is acceptable to the people or not.

Certainly in this case, it's the right thing to do.

Force me to pay a company that will deny my claims if I get sick is the right thing to do?

I'm all for socialized medicine, but this is a farking joke. A mandate to pay into a for profit system is spectacularly stupid.

It's all like a big sick joke. Makes me glad I'm not one of these poor or underemployed people who can't afford insurance. Now they'll be required to purchase insurance, but still won't have the economic means to be able to afford to use it. Won't be able to pay the co-pays and other uncovered costs. Can't believe congress passed this law rather than just expanding medicare/medicaid (or better yet single payer/universal). It takes a really twisted person to pass this and then tell people it's to help them.

A Dark Evil Omen: o5iiawah: balloot: Every other civilized country in the world has figured this out, and has solved the problem.

At a 40-60% income tax rate for their citizens and a waiting list for care. There's a reason why Canada and Europe's rich come here for treatment.

I'm a Canadian, and you're a lying jackass. Did you know that more Americans per capita go to Canada for health care than vice versa?

Hey, serious question about how Canada's health system works. I lived there for a couple of years and never asked my friends about it, but I noted that all of them carried some form of health insurance and many had health spending accounts on top of that. Is Canada's system set up so the public healthcare provides a certain minimum standard of services and insurance is used for the balance of care? Or is the insurance really just used by people of means to bypass the national system?

Friskya: They cited statistics showing that healthcare accounts for 17 percent of the nation's economy and argued that the law was a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate economic activity affecting interstate commerce.

Just out of idle curiosity (serious question, folks), is there any activity Americans can refuse to participate in that Congress can't claim authority to regulate under the Commerce Clause?

All of them. Seriously. The Constitution does not grant the Feds the power to make anyone participate in a specific commercial activity. Would it be legal for the Feds to require you to own a land line telephone? Despite the Feds having the power to regulate telephones, that power ends when it comes to making you buy the service. Some would argue that auto insurance is required. Yes, in some states it is IF you own a car and plan to drive it, but no one forces you to buy a car. However, that is handled at the state level, not the federal level, so it's a moot point.

A Dark Evil Omen: Did you know that more Americans per capita go to Canada for health care than vice versa?

That's because there actually only about 1000 Canadians in total. You guys move around a lot to make it look like there are more of you. We're onto you sneaky little bastards.

constructor5179: Makes me glad I'm not one of these poor or underemployed people who can't afford insurance. Now they'll be required to purchase insurance, but still won't have the economic means to be able to afford to use it. Won't be able to pay the co-pays and other uncovered costs.

Please read more on what actually got passed.

First, if you're making little enough that the cheapest state-exchange plan would eat up 8% of your gross income, there is no penalty for not having it. You simply don't have to. But, if you're making less than that (which is damned near half the country, btw, depending on the final premiums on the state-exchange plans), you're generally eligible for heavy subsidization under PPACA.

It's going to be massively expensive, and we really haven't budgeted appropriate revenues to make it happen without seas of red ink. But, in terms of 'farking over the poor', the devil's in the details, and on the details, it's a whole lot closer to rest-of-the-world socialized insurance than most of its detractors on the left currently admit.

Winning: cman: Even as a Libertarian I would have highly preferred a universal health care system over this bullshiat Obama signed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Obama want something that resembled a universal health care system?

Sure, but, in Deal or no Deal terms, he took the Banker's lowball offer the minute the million dollar briefcase was gone.

hillbillypharmacist: Friskya: Funnily enough, you're not actually required to know how to drive.

That's the next step. You can't deny that it would be better for the economy if everyone were mandated to know how to drive, and own, a car.

The real question here is which model gets issued to those who can't afford one.

My money's on the Yugo Screwyourself.

Karac: qorkfiend:

And while some fire departments are staffed by volunteers, most have at least some paid personnel. Not to mention the fact that the fire engine's are owned by the local government.

our vol fire dept has all.... volunteers, and they have big events to raise money, when they need a newer truck. They only buy used trucks, as they don't have a big budget, leaching off the tax payer to flush away.

balloot: Here's the logic:

Nobody should be unable to buy health insurance due to preexisting conditions. This is something almost everyone can agree on.

If you force insurance companies to ignore preeexisting conditions, then healthy people will simply wait to get insurance until they're sick. In this case, all insurance companies would go out of business because there's no point in providing health insurance if people don't pay at times when they're not costing the insurance company money.

To solve that problem, you then have to force everyone to buy insurance, OR you have to create a subsidized public insurer that is not working for profit. This is the only way out if you want to get around the preexisting condition thing.

Every other civilized country in the world has figured this out, and has solved the problem. I have no idea why Republicans fight so damn hard to ensure that some people will never be allowed to get insurance. I say this as a 30 year old male who is extremely healthy in every way but somehow was deemed "uninsurable" by Blue Shield of CA. There is no way to challenge this decision, and they purposely make it impossible to contact the department that makes the decision. I have literally spent about 20 hours so far trying to get this rectified. That's 20 hours I could have spent doing actual productive work.

Even with all the successful GOP propaganda to suppress this from becoming common knowledge, you can always count on injustice to keep progressive thought alive.

EnviroDude: CruiserTwelve: So if the SCOTUS rules that requiring mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, will that negate mandatory car insurance requirements by the states?

If you do not understand the differences between the two, you should research it.

they are as far apart as night vs day

for example: People that elect not to own cars are not forced to purchase car insurance

Wait what? I know you're a retard and all, but in this analogy... people that elect not to own cars are not forced to purchase car insurance, ergo people who ????? are/are not forced to purchase health insurance

ClipJoint: Wait what? I know you're a retard and all, but in this analogy... people that elect not to own cars are not forced to purchase car insurance, ergo people who ????? are/are not forced to purchase health insurance

ergo people who really don't want to are not forced to purchase health insurance. If their income is over a certain amount (excluding a whole lot of low earners entirely), they may face higher taxes as a result of that decision. But, pay the tax, and you don't have to. In all effects the same as if it were written as a tax hike on everyone (over $X income) with a fairly substantial tax credit for buying insurance. Which I'm sure some people would have a problem with, but which wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court.