Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Today begins the day in which the Supreme Court shall hear arguments to decide if giving up a little freedom for a bit of safety is constitutional   (cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, supreme courts, health reform, Families USA, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, constitutionality, Paul Clement, Affordable Care Act  
•       •       •

9008 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2012 at 9:44 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



308 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-26 10:32:44 AM  
fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

What about being forced into commencement, by the act of living?

Unfortunately, thats the right frame. When someone is sick or injured, they don't get all bootstrappy and sit at home and die from a preventible or treatable condition. They go to the hospital, which is morally obliged to treat them. And the bill gets footed by other people that are insured, insurance co's, the hospital directly, or the taxpayers in general.

When nit comes down to life or death / disability, they bootstrappy farkers become socialists. ask the biatch that brought this suit forward in the first place, she's screwed a hospital out of thousands in medical bills since bringing the case forward. Because she didn't have insurance and she got sick.


I know conservatives live in their own fairy tale land, where the sweat of their brow and the voice creates their own reality. Sadly thats not the childish world we live in.
 
2012-03-26 10:32:46 AM  

I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: I wanted a public option. But nooooooo! We got a mandate regardless of affordability.

Look up the word "subsidy"

Then kill yourself.

Seriously? Way to keep the discourse going.

[Link][i586.photobucket.com image 500x375]


No, really, keep ignoring the subsidy thing. It's really helping your "argument"
 
2012-03-26 10:32:57 AM  

birchman: I don't know why bootstrappy Republicans hate it so much anyway. Since I'm sure they already buy health insurance it shouldn't affect them, and all it does is force the freeloaders to pay into the system that they already benefit from when they go to the ER for free. In a way it's almost LESS socialist than the current system.

Oh yeah, Obama did it so it must be bad.


WTF? This an honest post?

It forces healthy people to buy government approved (very costly and comprehensive) health insurance policies with the intent of providing money to insure others. It allows government to force people to buy private products, in the name of the commerce clause which is complete BS. It creates more freeloaders and makes it much more expensive for people to pay for their own, and businesses to offer insurance to employees. Now a healthy 26 year old will be forced to buy a very expensive policy that they don't need. Meanwhile, unions are already getting passes on the law, because of course, it doesn't apply yo Obama's supporters. If you have a policy you are happy with, guess what? Government can simply say it is not expensive enough, and you have to give it up and comply with their standards.

You know what right people have? They have the right to get a goddamn job, that is what government should be mandating, if anything.
 
2012-03-26 10:33:42 AM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Odds are the same parents who don't enroll their children in recieving the free coverage for them that already exists will not be involving their children in the legislation that is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Then those parents will pay a tax penalty and that money will go towards their child's healthcare (or a pool which will provide for it) later on. See how that works? It's a pretty good system.

Don't the poor have enough they can't pay for already? Why tax them or throw them in jail for not complying?


Who said anything about the poor? I thought we were talking about people who didn't insure their children?

Sounds like you're another person who doesn't understand the whole "subsidy" thing.
 
2012-03-26 10:34:18 AM  

Thunderpipes: (very costly and comprehensive


[citation needed]
 
2012-03-26 10:34:35 AM  

digidorm: birchman: ...all it does is force the freeloaders to pay into the system that they already benefit from when they go to the ER for free. In a way it's almost LESS socialist than the current system.
Oh yeah, Obama did it so it must be bad.

My thoughts exactly. We already force hospitals and medical facilities to treat anyone with a medical emergency - that's law going back 35 years. And we pay for that in higher health care costs, and it's only getting worse as fewer jobs provide insurance.

...So why people latch onto the opinion that everybody being obligated to pay their fair share into the system is a "bad thing"... I really have no idea. Of all the "freedom" government has been taking away, why this, why now?

(...other than "because Obama".)


Stop this misconception. It is not law. It is a trade for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. Hospitals can stop at any time.
 
2012-03-26 10:35:03 AM  

Phinn: As a result, costs tend to increase without any countervailing reason to limit them -- until, that is, costs become so high that it's a political embarrassment.


What do you think has been going on with healthcare?

And this law does have mechanisms to limit the costs.
 
2012-03-26 10:35:43 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Odds are the same parents who don't enroll their children in recieving the free coverage for them that already exists will not be involving their children in the legislation that is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Then those parents will pay a tax penalty and that money will go towards their child's healthcare (or a pool which will provide for it) later on. See how that works? It's a pretty good system.

Don't the poor have enough they can't pay for already? Why tax them or throw them in jail for not complying?

Who said anything about the poor? I thought we were talking about people who didn't insure their children?

Sounds like you're another person who doesn't understand the whole "subsidy" thing.


Well the programs usually don't extend to families above certain incomes.

So the programs are there for the poor.....right?
 
2012-03-26 10:36:03 AM  

UtileDysfunktion: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

Like requiring everyone who drives to buy auto insurance?

/I is scared


Don't you get it? This is just the first domino! If we let them force us to buy health insurance, what's next? Is the government going to force us to buy gay muslim shariah abortions one day?
 
2012-03-26 10:36:11 AM  

birchman: I don't know why bootstrappy Republicans hate it so much anyway. Since I'm sure they already buy health insurance it shouldn't affect them, and all it does is force the freeloaders to pay into the system that they already benefit from when they go to the ER for free. In a way it's almost LESS socialist than the current system.

Oh yeah, Obama did it so it must be bad.


The health insurance that we buy through my husband's employer will be done away with when Obamacare takes over. Every employer will dump its employees on the government health plan to save money.
 
2012-03-26 10:36:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Nightsweat: It's already settled law. If they act to overturn, it's typical activist conservative judicial bullshiat - Wickard. v. Filburn, 1942

Precedent means nothing to this court.


It means little to certain members of this court, for sure, but remember that stare decisis is not concrete...it is meant to be changeable in some situations.

Regardless, having read Wickard, I must admit I wasn't happy with the ruling from the facts presented, despite my progressive leanings. Wickard basically said "We're going to govern your gardens, even if you're a subsistence farmer." Little too broad IMHO.
 
2012-03-26 10:36:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: jaymanchu: Wiretapping OK, giving children health care BOOOOOO! FASHIST SOSHOLIST BOOOOO!!!

SCHIP already existed moron.

Then why were there still millions of uninsured children in the US before ACA?


Lazy and ignorant parents. Analysis showed this during the Aca arguments.
 
2012-03-26 10:37:35 AM  

Deneb81: mindflayer: I wonder if the bill would have structured it differently it could have avoided the individual mandate constitutional question. So just raise taxes on all Americans by X percent and provide a rebate back if you have health insurance. Wouldn't be any different than getting a deduction for your mortgage or green car or whatever if it was worded that way.

Technically, yes. Practically? Anything that 'raised taxes' would have been DOA because of the republican opposition. It barely got passed as is.


And since almost all of the uninsured don't pay taxes anyway, the only people hurt would be hard working Americans. This would lead to more people not paying taxes. It is at 50% right now, what percentage of Americans are you comfortable with not paying any income taxes?

Want to do it right? Make poor people start paying as well. Until that happens, they will always vote for the most free stuff, which comes from Democrats. They breed faster and vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This cycle will never, ever end this way.
 
2012-03-26 10:37:45 AM  

MyRandomName: Stop this misconception. It is not law. It is a trade for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. Hospitals can stop at any time.


And the "mandate" isn't a mandate, it's a tax, well within the 16th amendment powers of the US Government.
 
2012-03-26 10:38:29 AM  

fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.


It would, but the party pushing the crap out of this doesn't care about the long term impact of things like that, they care about intentions and, to a lesser extent, feelings.

As long as they mean well and it seems like a good idea and/or feels right, then it's OK. Horrific precedents and the distinct possibility of long term problems are no big deal because their guy won't use those powers to do bad things.
 
2012-03-26 10:38:37 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: MyRandomName: UtileDysfunktion: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

Like requiring everyone who drives to buy auto insurance?

/I is scared

Sign of an idiot: equating state regulation powers with federal.

So you support RomneyCare?


Massachusetts can do what it wants. Ot is a state power. Do I politically support it? No. Is it a state power and constitutional? Yes.

States have the power, feds do not.
 
2012-03-26 10:39:04 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: UtileDysfunktion: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

Like requiring everyone who drives to buy auto insurance?
/I is scared

really? every state requires that? wrong.
so with that stupid analogy it is a requirement of being alive to buy something.
well, then you should by required to buy life insurance and a gym membership and be taxed if your BMI is too high, or too low.


Let's see... Which States do not require auto insurance... AHA! Exactly ONE. New Hampshire.

Everyone else has somehow dealt with it without the Country descending into anarchy, so I'm still not scared.

...also, part of the problem with "being alive" is that, at some point, you WILL require healthcare of some sort (unlike auto insurance, which you may never actually use).

Now, if you want to self-insure yourself, that's fine with me, but make sure that you have sufficient funds such that you're not going to be a net expense to anyone else. Few of us can afford to do that.

OR, you could just off yourself the first time you get really ill. I'd go along with that, too.
 
2012-03-26 10:39:16 AM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Odds are the same parents who don't enroll their children in recieving the free coverage for them that already exists will not be involving their children in the legislation that is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Then those parents will pay a tax penalty and that money will go towards their child's healthcare (or a pool which will provide for it) later on. See how that works? It's a pretty good system.

Don't the poor have enough they can't pay for already? Why tax them or throw them in jail for not complying?

Who said anything about the poor? I thought we were talking about people who didn't insure their children?

Sounds like you're another person who doesn't understand the whole "subsidy" thing.

Well the programs usually don't extend to families above certain incomes.

So the programs are there for the poor.....right?


That is correct, yes. And there are subsidies within ACA that will pay for the insurance for a lot more people who do not qualify for SCHIP but cannot or do not buy insurance for their children.

See how that works? It builds on the program already there to fill in the gaps and cover for parents who won't or don't do it.
 
2012-03-26 10:39:25 AM  

PrivateCaboose: Its the principle of it. Right now if you're self employed, and you don't buy health insurance, you can pay a doctor in CASH and get a discount. This law will adversely affect those individuals, and frankly it constitutes a tax on existing past the age of 18. How is that possibly legal?!


First of all, a flat income tax (which is essentially what this is because you're exempt if you have no income) is perfectly legal. Secondly, most self employed people are covered by one of the many loopholes and will likely not be forced to buy health insurance. Thirdly, the health insurance isn't for "I need a $20 antibiotic" it's for the "I fell off a ladder and need $700k in surgery." If those self employed people weren't buying catastrophic coverage before they were just counting on me to pay for it.
 
2012-03-26 10:39:53 AM  

MyRandomName: HotWingConspiracy: MyRandomName: UtileDysfunktion: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

Like requiring everyone who drives to buy auto insurance?

/I is scared

Sign of an idiot: equating state regulation powers with federal.

So you support RomneyCare?

Massachusetts can do what it wants. Ot is a state power. Do I politically support it? No. Is it a state power and constitutional? Yes.

States have the power, feds do not.


Based on what? The 16th amendment clearly states that the Federal government has the power to lay and collect a tax on income without apportionment.
 
2012-03-26 10:40:15 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: UtileDysfunktion: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

Like requiring everyone who drives to buy auto insurance?

/I is scared

Sign of an idiot: equating state regulation powers with federal.

Because it can only be "fascism" when it's a federal government. There is no such thing as "state-level" fascism because something something you figure it out


States can be a lot more domineering. That is how the American system of government was set up. This was done for a reason, the federalist papers give an in depth discussion on this matter. They should be required reading for everyone.
 
2012-03-26 10:40:39 AM  

Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: Tigger: jst3p: Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: cman: godofatheist: i will save you the trouble, they will side with the government.

I sadly think so, too.

Forcing citizens to give money to corporations is called "Fascism". The GOP isnt in control and yet fascism flourishes.

You mean in the same way they force you to have car insurance? Or in the same way they force you to have a driver's license (that you have to pay for), if you want to drive, or board an airplane? Or in the same way they force you to pay taxes for services you never use anyway?

So the republicans want people to be responsible citizens, except we shouldn't "force" people to be responsible citizens?

Yeah, I get it now.

I am OK with the mandate, but this is moronic logic. I am not forced to do any of those things. I can not participate in any of them without penalty. None of them are comparable to the issue at hand.

So you think you can opt out of paying taxes?

Do let me know how that goes sport.

I never said that, sport. I meant exactly what I posted, and nothing more.

I've highlighted the discrepancy in bold.
 
2012-03-26 10:40:58 AM  

MyRandomName: Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: jst3p: Minimally Hairy Beer-Powered Simian: cman: godofatheist: i will save you the trouble, they will side with the government.

I sadly think so, too.

Forcing citizens to give money to corporations is called "Fascism". The GOP isnt in control and yet fascism flourishes.

You mean in the same way they force you to have car insurance? Or in the same way they force you to have a driver's license (that you have to pay for), if you want to drive, or board an airplane? Or in the same way they force you to pay taxes for services you never use anyway?

So the republicans want people to be responsible citizens, except we shouldn't "force" people to be responsible citizens?

Yeah, I get it now.

I am OK with the mandate, but this is moronic logic. I am not forced to do any of those things. I can not participate in any of them without penalty. None of them are comparable to the issue at hand.

Of course they are comparable. The republicans complain that the government wants to force us into participating in commerce. Well, the same thing happens in other ways, whether we like it or not. The government mandates things all the time that we have to pay for, either through taxes or through a one-on-one relationship with a corporation.

What I find the most galling is the individual mandate was a republican idea, but because Obama embraced it, it is now a bad idea.

This retarded argument needs to die. One think tank in 93 supported it. Ot was never a central republican platform. Liberals used to support eugenics, can I now say all liberals want to kill off retards? All liberals were for the Brady bill in the 90s, can I say Obama wants to take your guns? Stupid argument is stupid.


Except, ya know, there's that Mitt Romney guy who was all for it not too long ago. Remember him? In the not too distant future, he will be the GOP party leader. But really, what does it matter how central of a platform plank it was? Fact is, Republicans have supported it in the past with absolutely zero repercussions. Now that Obama is for it, suddenly it's bad now and revisionist GOP history claims it was always bad.
 
2012-03-26 10:41:13 AM  

MyRandomName: States can be a lot more domineering. That is how the American system of government was set up. This was done for a reason, the federalist papers give an in depth discussion on this matter. They should be required reading for everyone.


The Federalist papers are not law, and the Supreme Court after the Civil War decided that no, the States cannot be a lot more "domineering"
 
2012-03-26 10:41:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: It forces healthy people


I stopped right there. Anyone who doesn't at least carry disaster coverage is gambling with my money that they won't slip and break their arm or worse.
 
2012-03-26 10:42:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: mindflayer: I wonder if the bill would have structured it differently it could have avoided the individual mandate constitutional question. So just raise taxes on all Americans by X percent and provide a rebate back if you have health insurance. Wouldn't be any different than getting a deduction for your mortgage or green car or whatever if it was worded that way.

That would have been constitutional bit Obama was avoiding his George hw bush moment of no new taxes. Remember the Matt lauer interview. Hr explicitly said ot was not a tax. Democrats attempted the mandate with penalty due to politics, now it bites them in the ass. The 16th is very clear on the taxing powers of the fed.

"The courts have ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."[33]
[edit] "

[edit] ">You were saying? (new window)


Yet the court has ruled the mandate penalty is not a tax. Even the ones upholding it have stated so. You were saying? The Ussc has already ruled that a penalty is not a tax in previous cases. Too lazy to find the case, but this has been ruled on more than once.
 
2012-03-26 10:42:39 AM  

Somacandra: tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama has whined in the past that he could do more if it wasn't for the pesky balance of power getting in the way.

[i.imgur.com image 240x312]

Meh. Every President jokes about that, so long as he's the "dictator." (new window)


encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-03-26 10:42:52 AM  

UtileDysfunktion: LazarusLong42: Please, SCOTUS, give me back my freedom to die penniless and sick if I'm unlucky with disease!

Now THAT'S real freedom.

I'm not sure the current healthcare bill as it stands is a good idea , but the people screaming Soshoolism! and literally praying that it gets defeated are beyond my comprehension.

/probably the same people that want the guvment to keep its hands off their Soshul Security.


Oh, the current law is atrocious--it's basically the most right-wing health care plan that could be written. But it's better than what we had before. Single payer--or at least a public option--would have been much better. One part of me hopes SCOTUS says something along the lines of "you can't mandate buying private insurance, but you can mandate buying Medicare," but I don't think Kennedy is willing to legislate from the bench like that.
 
2012-03-26 10:43:24 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: States can be a lot more domineering. That is how the American system of government was set up. This was done for a reason, the federalist papers give an in depth discussion on this matter. They should be required reading for everyone.

The Federalist papers are not law, and the Supreme Court after the Civil War decided that no, the States cannot be a lot more "domineering"


Not only that, but they're also inconsistent. We use them for a smattering of guidance in what was a largely undocumented debate on constitutional meaning; and to that end they're not all that helpful.
 
SH
2012-03-26 10:43:24 AM  

fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.


Like social security?
 
2012-03-26 10:43:27 AM  

MyRandomName: States have the power, feds do not.


Apparently that's not so clear, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Conservative judges have said this is an easy case for the administration. It really just comes down to how much fealty the conservative judges have for the GOP.
 
2012-03-26 10:44:11 AM  

MyRandomName: Yet the court has ruled the mandate penalty is not a tax


What court? The Supreme Court?
 
2012-03-26 10:44:24 AM  

PrivateCaboose: birchman: I don't know why bootstrappy Republicans hate it so much anyway. Since I'm sure they already buy health insurance it shouldn't affect them, and all it does is force the freeloaders to pay into the system that they already benefit from when they go to the ER for free. In a way it's almost LESS socialist than the current system.

Oh yeah, Obama did it so it must be bad.

Its the principle of it. Right now if you're self employed, and you don't buy health insurance, you can pay a doctor in CASH and get a discount. This law will adversely affect those individuals, and frankly it constitutes a tax on existing past the age of 18. How is that possibly legal?!


Possible answers:

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (the very first part of Article I, Section 8 by the way):

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
which was passed by Congress on July 2, 1909 and ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


That answer your question?
 
2012-03-26 10:44:39 AM  

MyRandomName: UtileDysfunktion: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

Like requiring everyone who drives to buy auto insurance?

/I is scared

Sign of an idiot: equating state regulation powers with federal.


Sign of an idiot II: not recognizing that there's some overlap between the two. You must be from the independent nation of Texas.
 
2012-03-26 10:44:58 AM  
Just buy your health insurance and move along citizen

Next you will be required to buy the following in order to create a more perfect USA:
- GM or Chrysler cars
- Solar panels
- Hypo allergenic dogs
- Free range chicken

Further purchasing requirements will be forwarded as needed
 
2012-03-26 10:45:43 AM  

JohnCarter: Just buy your health insurance and move along citizen

Next you will be required to buy the following in order to create a more perfect USA:
- GM or Chrysler cars
- Solar panels
- Hypo allergenic dogs
- Free range chicken

Further purchasing requirements will be forwarded as needed


When all else fails, use a logical fallacy. Sigh
 
2012-03-26 10:46:22 AM  

cehlen: The health insurance that we buy through my husband's employer will be done away with when Obamacare takes over. Every employer will dump its employees on the government health plan to save money.


Employers already started doing that.

We had BC Personal Choice with a $10 copay for our employees. We have no idea how much extra that plan will cost us with the new taxes applied to cadillac plans when everything is finalized so we switched to a catastrophic plan with an HSA....we even gave everyone a raise and a check of 3k for single coverage or 6k for a family to cover the deductibles.
 
2012-03-26 10:46:25 AM  

Jake Havechek: Hmm, they didn't bother with the draconian USA Patriot Act when Herr Bush was in charge.


No one could demonstrate harm because the evidence to do so was classified as a matter of national security. Tidy package.
 
2012-03-26 10:46:26 AM  

JohnCarter: Just buy your health insurance and move along citizen

Next you will be required to buy the following in order to create a more perfect USA:
- GM or Chrysler cars
- Solar panels
- Hypo allergenic dogs
- Free range chicken

Further purchasing requirements will be forwarded as needed


Your movie sucked.
 
2012-03-26 10:47:56 AM  
I am in awe of the right's ability to convince the poor (and not so poor) that being continually ass-raped by the rich is a good thing.

Yep, being able to get health care, and to not have that health care arbitrarily withdrawn at the whim of profit-obsessed corporations, is truly a terrible thing. Keep believing that.
 
2012-03-26 10:48:01 AM  

liam76: Phinn: As a result, costs tend to increase without any countervailing reason to limit them -- until, that is, costs become so high that it's a political embarrassment.

What do you think has been going on with healthcare?

And this law does have mechanisms to limit the costs.


I know exactly what's been going on with healthcare -- governmental destruction of essential market information.

First, there's Medicare. By far, the largest consumer of medical services is the richest demographic: old farts. As a result of forcing young, working people to pay for the medical services of old, retired people, costs have skyrocketed. Neither consumers nor providers can make informed choices about when to get medical care and how much to pay for it. They are isolated from the costs, by design.

And, there's also a little matter of a ridiculous government-created patent system for pharmaceuticals. Thanks, Big Pharma.

And governmental restrictions on the number of medical school graduates per year (i.e., an artificial barrier to entry, which restricts supply, and inflates costs). How hard should it be to get into Med School? Let more Med Schools be founded, and we'll find out.

This limit on the supply of doctors is coupled with the ridiculous restrictions on who can practice simple medical procedures. (You do not need 10 years of post-secondary education to treat the sniffles with antibiotics.)

And there is the history of massive governmental intrusion into medical insurance long before Obama. Medical insurance only came about because employers were forced to keep wages fixed during WWII. So, they used medical "insurance" as a means of paying people more, to compete for better employees. These laws were then made permanent through tax breaks on insurance (but not on salaries). Without the war-socialism of wage-fixing laws, there would be no "insurance" for anything but catastrophic coverage.

And there there's the direct state control over what forms of coverage insurers can even offer, and what they are forced to offer. Again, when consumers cannot pick and choose what to buy and what to pay for, there is no market price information,which people need to make decisions.

So, after doing all of this for 100 years, Leftists and other idiots naturally blame free enterprise.
 
SH
2012-03-26 10:48:02 AM  

PrivateCaboose: and frankly it constitutes a tax on existing past the age of 18. How is that possibly legal?!


Cite the law it is breaking please?
 
2012-03-26 10:48:06 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: Yet the court has ruled the mandate penalty is not a tax

What court? The Supreme Court?


Indeed, MyRandomName...please give us the case for this ruling that the Supreme Court would be (mostly) bound by under stare decisis.

Or are you just throwing out whatever crap you think might bolster your case to avoid your side losing?

Because that's what this is about, isn't it? Making sure you are on the winning side no matter what the cost?
 
2012-03-26 10:48:48 AM  

fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.


OK I'll ask again.

How is this any different than my tax dollars going towards Blackwater or Haliburton?
 
SH
2012-03-26 10:49:48 AM  

Andulamb: I am in awe of the right's ability to convince the poor (and not so poor) that being continually ass-raped by the rich is a good thing.

Yep, being able to get health care, and to not have that health care arbitrarily withdrawn at the whim of profit-obsessed corporations, is truly a terrible thing. Keep believing that.


+1
 
2012-03-26 10:50:19 AM  

illogic: fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.

OK I'll ask again.

How is this any different than my tax dollars going towards Blackwater or Haliburton?


We don't want that either...maybe you should submit an article and start another thread about that where we can talk about it.
 
2012-03-26 10:51:18 AM  
I'm as liberal as they come, but the mandate is and should be thought of by any right (err, left) thinking person as an outrage. Being forced to prop up the very rent-seeking system that has perpetuated the horror that is the American healthcare "system" is just wrong. There's a reason the Heritage Foundation came up with it, and that it was championed by every right-wing politician right up until someone from the other team supported it.

On the other hand, all the Fark Independents who at one time championed this kind of "market-based" solution and who now equate it with Stalinism are funny (see also: cap and trade).
 
2012-03-26 10:51:37 AM  
Why is it that credit card companies have to be repaid in full by their customers if the default, but hospitals/medical facilities do not?

Why dont we require that all medical bills be repaid by the people who incur them (thereby getting rid of medical bankruptcy), instead of forcing people to purchase insurance that they do not want?
 
2012-03-26 10:51:50 AM  

fastfxr: Being legally forced into commerce, by the government, should frighten ALL of you.


How about this reasonable compromise: you promise never to seek paid health care for the rest of your life, and then I'll respect your argument. Otherwise, you're choosing to engage in interstate commerce, and the federal government has a legitimate interest in regulating how it is delievered and paid for. Which will it be?
 
2012-03-26 10:54:18 AM  

Phinn: So, after doing all of this for 100 years, Leftists and other idiots naturally blame free enterprise.


The difference between back then and now being:
- there's no demand for labor leading to incentive like healthcare
- the cost of living v. average wage ratio is much higher now than back then
- insurance companies make decisions about life or death based on profit margins
- the disparity between rich and poor is much larger now than back then
- care for old folks costs much more than it used to.
- Big Pharma: well shiat, you got me there...ridiculous how we pander to those companies.
 
Displayed 50 of 308 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report