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.

(The Daily Beast)   Actually, Congress HAS required citizens to purchase insurance before. Bonus: that Congress included 20 of the original framers of the Constitution. Double bonus: it was signed into law by George Washington   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 333
    More: Interesting, supreme courts, Solicitor General of the United States, Justice Kennedy, false premise, George Washington, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

6836 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2012 at 7:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-28 07:41:39 PM  
FFINOs!
 
2012-03-28 07:46:34 PM  
So other unchallenged laws existed before? That's supposed to help determine Constitutionality how?
 
2012-03-28 07:50:48 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.


what an utter farking moron.

this is a PR disaster. the GOP has been masterful in spreading lies (govt. takeover! death panels!) and the dems have been feckless in telling the truth. and the media is so terrified of being called liberal, they spout republican talking points verbatim, unchallenged and unexamined.

we deserve to have healthcare reform taken away. hell, i'd love to see a GOP sweep in november and ALL govt. healthcare rescinded, starting with tricare, medicare and medicaid. i wonder where they'll stack the corpses. or perhaps they can burn them as fuel.

farking savages.
 
2012-03-28 07:52:23 PM  

bulldg4life: Not stupid. If this had been presented to the congress as a tax by the adminstration from the beginning, it probably would have passed. There is little chance of that now considering the make-up of the House. It was a well thought out gamble, IMO, it failed.

The democrats were never going to have the spine to sell a tax raise to everyone in an effort to make it work.


It probably wouldn't have passed the Senate cloture, just for the Dems who didn't want to admit that they were passing a tax increase (which it, effectively, is).

It was sad small-ball politics. Because anyone who was going to vote against an incumbent Dem because he/she voted for a tax increase was also going to vote against him/her for voting for Obamacare, 'tax increase' or no. The artful dodge didn't help Blanche Lincoln or Russ Feingold. Maybe, just on the edge of plausibility, the "I passed Obamacare but didn't raise taxes" bullcrap was enough to tip the line in the Harry Reid/Sharron Angle race. Maybe.
 
2012-03-28 07:52:51 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.


They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills! My right to be denied coverage based upon pre-existing conditions!
 
2012-03-28 07:53:18 PM  
In all these cases (other than the firearms case), one could say the federal duty was imposed on persons who are already engaged in some commerce. But that is also true of everyone subject to the health-insurance mandate, because all of us buy or sell something.

I wouldn't go there. Arguing a wide cast net is why Citizen's United got decided as it did. The court will see it as a challenge whenever you argue a limitless power.
 
2012-03-28 07:53:33 PM  
not for merely being among the living they haven't.
 
2012-03-28 07:53:39 PM  
It's the height of partisan idiocy for Republicans to oppose the mandate. Their own party has been proposing it for years. Their own presidential frontrunner believed in it until it started costing him votes. And it's the ultimate enforcement of personal responsibility: if you want to use the system, you have to buy into the system.

Ridiculous.
 
2012-03-28 07:54:17 PM  
But....but....Clinton!
 
2012-03-28 07:54:43 PM  
the author is lying.

buying the guns and ammo had to do with the fact that people were drafted into militias and had to arm themselves.

it isn't commerce
 
2012-03-28 07:54:48 PM  

FlashHarry: everyone will consume health care at some point in their lives


And everyone will consume/need clothing/food/shelter.......so? Surely you're not suggesting we have a mandate to require those things.

On the other hand...a mandate to buy clothing could be based on a minimum standard just like health care. Women...low cut tops and above the knee skirts...no panties allowed.

MrLint: So which state will be the first to be sued for mandatory auto insurance?


The first one that requires you buy a car before requiring you to buy auto insurance.
 
2012-03-28 07:55:47 PM  

RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!


How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?
 
2012-03-28 07:56:03 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: the author is lying.

buying the guns and ammo had to do with the fact that people were drafted into militias and had to arm themselves.

it isn't commerce


When you get drafted, the government buys you a gun, they don't make you buy your own.
 
2012-03-28 07:56:21 PM  
i449.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-28 07:57:31 PM  

bulldg4life: To add, I think it is humorous that the cons are stomping their feet so loudly for this unbelievable government power when their presumed victory would just pave the way for a universal single payer public option


I keep hearing this. What in the world makes you think that the President would try to enact such a thing when he didn't the first time, or that Congress would pass it?
 
2012-03-28 07:58:35 PM  

Ambivalence: Social security is a mandated insurance program.


Under tax and spend authority, not commerce clause. Please keep up.
 
2012-03-28 07:59:18 PM  

Edsel: It's the height of partisan idiocy for Republicans to oppose the mandate. Their own party has been proposing it for years. Their own presidential frontrunner believed in it until it started costing him votes. And it's the ultimate enforcement of personal responsibility: if you want to use the system, you have to buy into the system.

Ridiculous.


If you look at the history of Conservatives supporting the mandate - you will see they pushed it as an alternative to a public option model (at the time Hillarycare). They saw it as the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean they supported a federal health care plan - they were just trying to make it less "bad" (their words) at the time.

/Romney on the other hand - who knows what he really believes in - if anything
 
2012-03-28 07:59:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!

How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?


It eliminates lifetime limits and phases out annual limits.
 
2012-03-28 07:59:45 PM  

MrLint: So which state will be the first to be sued for mandatory auto insurance?


are people still trying to make this stupid argument?

how about the first state that requires you to buy auto insurance even if you don't have a car? (since you may be hit by a car when you cross the street and it would lower the cost of other people who can't afford car insurance).

you aren't required to have a car. if you want one, there is a requirement, in some states. Oh, there is also a requirement to have a drivers license.
 
2012-03-28 07:59:58 PM  

Guess_Who: s2s2s2: Your blog sucks

Im old school Fark. If you clicked on the link you weren't allowed to post in the thread. But I'll take your word for it.


Voldemort?
 
2012-03-28 08:00:43 PM  

Cagey B: I keep hearing this. What in the world makes you think that the President would try to enact such a thing when he didn't the first time, or that Congress would pass it?


I don't think I implied that it would happen in an Obama second term.

An unconstitutional ruling on this law would set back the Health care insurance debate 10 years, at minimum...I would think.
 
2012-03-28 08:00:46 PM  

Humean_Nature: There's also an interesting note in the article that all able-bodied people were required to buy firearms. And last I checked, there's no government-sponsored provider of firearms for public buyers. So in a sense, this was a federal mandate that applied to everyone just for being able-bodied, not just owners seeking licensing for operating a potentially dangerous vehicle, etc.


This wasn't based on an exercise of commerce powers. It was based on their obligation to maintain a military.

fickle floridian: The law in question affected shipowners in order to be licensed, much like car drivers are today.


Pretty much. This is regulatory in nature, which is distinct from a first-cause mandate that compels one to enter commerce.

Guess_Who: Im old school Fark.


img191.imageshack.us

/no you're not
 
2012-03-28 08:01:08 PM  

RussianPooper: tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!

How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?

It eliminates lifetime limits and phases out annual limits.


yeah, so? How does it lower medical bills for all those people who are no where near the lifetime limits or annual limits?
 
2012-03-28 08:02:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: But you don't have to buy it from a private party, so it's Constitutional

What about Medicare? That IS through a private party.

Medicare isn't through a private party. The health care is, but not the insurance.

Right, and? Not sure how that changes the constitutionality of it.


Tax and spend authority, not commerce clause.

Seriously, do none of you actually read the legal arguments used for ss and Medicare?
 
2012-03-28 08:03:42 PM  

FlashHarry:
we deserve to have healthcare reform taken away. hell, i'd love to see a GOP sweep in november and ALL govt. healthcare rescinded, starting with tricare, medicare and medicaid. i wonder where they'll stack the corpses. or perhaps they can burn them as fuel.

farking savages.


Well, who is going to decide where to stack the corpses? I would assume that would be the job of the Death Panels to decide that but if they rescind the law, there won't be any Death Panel to make that decision. Then what?

And you need to add to that list. If the government is going to get out of all health care, then they need to shut down all the VA hospitals for veterans too. I mean, really, if veterans didn't enroll in the armed forces, then they never would've gone to Iraq and had their legs blown off and therefore required medical care for the rest of their lives. It's their own fault. Why should the government have to pay for their decision to protect and defend the country?
 
2012-03-28 08:04:22 PM  

MrLint: So which state will be the first to be sued for mandatory auto insurance?


Retard alert. States have different powers than the feds. Liberals... Seriously stop this argument.
 
2012-03-28 08:04:48 PM  

Edsel: It's the height of partisan idiocy for Republicans to oppose the mandate. Their own party has been proposing it for years. Their own presidential frontrunner believed in it until it started costing him votes. And it's the ultimate enforcement of personal responsibility: if you want to use the system, you have to buy into the system.

Ridiculous.


the individual mandate is the worst possible way to get thirty million insurance that was conceivable by man.

the bill is the essence of governance first by corporate subsidy and in order to pass constitutional muster it will create an almost omnipotent power in the federal governemnt over every aspect of your personal life and it is all the evidence you need that democratic party has been completely subsumed by corporate interests.

and it is all for a not so spectacular payoff when you realize all we had to do was to raise taxes and expand medicare without creating this enormous power for true 100% coverage of the population at a cheaper price for all of us.

democrats should be embarrassed obama sold out the public option before the negotiations even began with congress.
 
2012-03-28 08:04:55 PM  

MyRandomName: Seriously, do none of you actually read the legal arguments used for ss and Medicare?


WELL OBAMA MAKES ME HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE BUT HEALTH CARE IS MORE IMPORTANT SO IT MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL. AND DONT TALK TO ME ABOUT BROCCOLI LOL THATS SILLY
 
2012-03-28 08:05:27 PM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: But you don't have to buy it from a private party, so it's Constitutional

What about Medicare? That IS through a private party.

Medicare isn't through a private party. The health care is, but not the insurance.

Right, and? Not sure how that changes the constitutionality of it.

Tax and spend authority, not commerce clause.

Seriously, do none of you actually read the legal arguments used for ss and Medicare?


be easy on people here. they only read talking points. they don't know what is actually going on.
but...but...car insurance!
 
2012-03-28 08:05:44 PM  

bulldg4life: The democrats were never going to have the spine to sell a tax raise to everyone in an effort to make it work.


The opposition attorney conceded, as do some in this thread, that the mandate would be constitutional if only Congress had called it a "tax." He admitted the "mandate" was in underlying form a tax increase with an offsetting tax credit for people who buy health insurance.

That is a dispositive concession. Congress is under no obligation to call a tax a tax. Neither is the Court bound to rely on what Congress says it is doing to determine what it is actually doing. If the individual mandate is, in reality, a tax increase with an offsetting tax credit for people who buy health insurance, then it must be upheld as a valid exercise of the tax power.
 
2012-03-28 08:05:54 PM  

bulldg4life: An unconstitutional ruling on this law would set back the Health care insurance debate 10 years, at minimum...I would think.


That doesn't really "pave the way" for anything. "This decision will kick health care reform in the nuts and make it so that anything positive can't happen for a decade." That doesn't fill me with confidence.

I too would like single-payer. It's never going to happen in this country. Never. As we go further towards corporate dominance of the state and health care makes up a bigger chunk of GDP, it makes it more and more unlikely that anything close to single payer gets done.
 
2012-03-28 08:06:17 PM  
Seniors are required to carry Part D insurance or be penalized if they go more than 63 days without credible coverage. Also required to carry Part B unless they have other insurance/


Except for the Black Guy part, this is nothing new!
 
2012-03-28 08:06:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: But you don't have to buy it from a private party, so it's Constitutional

What about Medicare? That IS through a private party.

Medicare isn't through a private party. The health care is, but not the insurance.

Right, and? Not sure how that changes the constitutionality of it.

Are you aware at all of the current controversy?

The current controversy that some people don't read the 16th Amendment and thus don't understand that the Congress has the ability to levy an income taxed that isn't based on apportionment?

Yeah, I'd say I'm aware of it.


So you are aware the ussc has never held that a regulatory penalty is a tax? Monday ruined this liberal argument, why are you still in this? Even the liberal justices didn't buy it.
 
2012-03-28 08:06:37 PM  

RussianPooper: Ambivalence: Social security is a mandated insurance program.

But you don't have to buy it from a private party, so it's Constitutional.

So how Constitutional do those Republicans think privatizing SS is? We'd be requiring people to invest their money with a private financial institution.


You can excuse yourself by not having a job?
 
2012-03-28 08:06:54 PM  

sprawl15: MyRandomName: Seriously, do none of you actually read the legal arguments used for ss and Medicare?

WELL OBAMA MAKES ME HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE BUT HEALTH CARE IS MORE IMPORTANT SO IT MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL. AND DONT TALK TO ME ABOUT BROCCOLI LOL THATS SILLY


remember, you don't need a drivers license or id to vote because that is racist.

i wonder if the use of broccoli as an example is a tribute to George Bush Sr and his famous line.
 
2012-03-28 08:07:17 PM  

RussianPooper: tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!

How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?

It eliminates lifetime limits and phases out annual limits.


it let's your kids stay on your plan to 26 so they have almost no stake in the the financial burdens of their care at all.

it's science.
 
2012-03-28 08:08:47 PM  

fusillade762: challengers decided to frame this case as being about an unprecedented effort by the government to force the purchase of a product

Yeah, the government can only tax you, draft you, incarcerate you and execute you. Making you buy stuff is beyond the pale!


Taxation is explicitly listed in the enumerated powers. Draft is under the power to raise armies. Why do you bring these up under an argument of.commerce authority?
 
2012-03-28 08:09:43 PM  

Cagey B: That doesn't really "pave the way" for anything. "This decision will kick health care reform in the nuts and make it so that anything positive can't happen for a decade." That doesn't fill me with confidence.


It paves the way in that Medicare and Social Security aren't going anywhere.

With a valid form of government sponsored insurance vehicles, the logical conclusion is to just extend Medicare to everyone.
 
2012-03-28 08:10:08 PM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: cameroncrazy1984: RussianPooper: But you don't have to buy it from a private party, so it's Constitutional

What about Medicare? That IS through a private party.

Medicare isn't through a private party. The health care is, but not the insurance.

Right, and? Not sure how that changes the constitutionality of it.

Tax and spend authority, not commerce clause.

Seriously, do none of you actually read the legal arguments used for ss and Medicare?


No.
 
2012-03-28 08:10:38 PM  
FTA - In fact, the challengers' claim is completely false. In 1790, the very first Congress (which included 20 framers of the Constitution, in case Justices Thomas and Scalia are counting), enacted a law requiring shipowners to buy medical insurance for seamen. The law was signed by another notable framer: President George Washington.

Let's see - was this the entire U.S population - nope

Congress followed this with a 1792 law requiring all able-bodied citizens to buy a firearm,

Once again, not the entire U.S population.

and a 1798 law requiring seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

Again, not the entire U.S. population.

Today, there are a host of affirmative federal duties to buy things. For example, federal law requires corporations to hire independent auditors,

Nope, not the entire population.

and requires unions to buy insurance bonds in case their officers engage in fraud.

.... and still, not the entire U.S. population.

/ apples - oranges
 
2012-03-28 08:12:00 PM  

RussianPooper: tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!

How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?

It eliminates lifetime limits and phases out annual limits.


you do know that the elimination of limits is only for "essential health benefits", right? Not expensive things like surgery (except ER)
 
2012-03-28 08:12:37 PM  

fickle floridian: The law in question affected shipowners in order to be licensed, much like car drivers are today. Nothing really new here. I guess the point is just that the founding fathers supported a law like that, which is somewhat interesting.

The contention seems to be over whether such a concept can be applied to everyone, just for living, not just owners seeking licensing for operating a potentially dangerous vehicle, etc.

We don't have a legal precedent for the founding fathers having a law like that.


Well it only applies to those that compete in the healthcare market

of course everyone capable of paying taxes competes to stay alive so.......
 
2012-03-28 08:12:37 PM  
nice try dem-o-rats

Obamacare is in the dumpster of history

bye bye baby

yea.......................................

I finally get my rights back, and it took a court to do it
 
2012-03-28 08:14:56 PM  
I will die... sometime

will the gov force me to buy a plot of land to be planted in?

actually I just want my decomposing body dumped on a liberals lawn
 
2012-03-28 08:15:17 PM  
Repeat from two years ago.
 
2012-03-28 08:15:39 PM  

winterwhile: nice try dem-o-rats

Obamacare is in the dumpster of history

bye bye baby

yea.......................................

I finally get my rights back, and it took a court to do it


You're not helping, Genius.
 
2012-03-28 08:16:04 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!

How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?

It eliminates lifetime limits and phases out annual limits.

you do know that the elimination of limits is only for "essential health benefits", right? Not expensive things like surgery (except ER)


thers that death pannel again....geeeeeeeee can I be on it?
 
2012-03-28 08:17:13 PM  

bulldg4life:


The democrats were never going to have the spine to sell a tax raise to everyone in an effort to make it work.


But how would it actually work?

Let's say they had a spine and raised taxes.

Then what would they do? Buy insurance for everyone? Get in the business of health insurance? How would that work if I already have insurance? Do I get two policies? Or does the other one go away?



I am asking, since I honestly do know what that alternate plan would have been.
 
2012-03-28 08:18:47 PM  

Yeah_Right: FTA - In fact, the challengers' claim is completely false. In 1790, the very first Congress (which included 20 framers of the Constitution, in case Justices Thomas and Scalia are counting), enacted a law requiring shipowners to buy medical insurance for seamen. The law was signed by another notable framer: President George Washington.

Let's see - was this the entire U.S population - nope

Congress followed this with a 1792 law requiring all able-bodied citizens to buy a firearm,

Once again, not the entire U.S population.

and a 1798 law requiring seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

Again, not the entire U.S. population.

Today, there are a host of affirmative federal duties to buy things. For example, federal law requires corporations to hire independent auditors,

Nope, not the entire population.

and requires unions to buy insurance bonds in case their officers engage in fraud.

.... and still, not the entire U.S. population.

/ apples - oranges


pshaw.

next your gonna tell me that the requirement to have a bonded and insured tractor trailer if you are a residential moving company engaged in interstate relocation doesn't automatically make constitutionally sound the healthcare mandate that requires purchase of insurance by those individuals that are not participating in the market.
 
2012-03-28 08:19:10 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: tenpoundsofcheese: RussianPooper: Soup4Bonnie: Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., who opposes health care reform, protests in front of the Supreme Court in Washington with a red hand painted over her mouth. She says the hand represents socialism taking away her choices and rights.

They're taking away my right to go bankrupt from medical bills!

How does 0bamacare lower medical bills?

It eliminates lifetime limits and phases out annual limits.

yeah, so? How does it lower medical bills for all those people who are no where near the lifetime limits or annual limits?


Right now, if you have insurance, you're premiums and co-pays also cover those without insurance. Why does it cost you a $200 co-pay to see a doctor in the ER for five minutes? Why does it cost your insurance company $700 for a $50 blood test you may need in the ER? Because the uninsured use the ER as their primary care physician and the hospitals need to find some way to pay for them too. They can't just leave uninsured people who need care on the street corner.

And again with the premiums, they cost alot of money partially because your insurance company gets charged alot of money by doctors and hospitals who see patients that can't pay for their coverage. So if everyone is required to have some form of health insurance, the insured will no longer have the extra burden of covering the costs of the uninsured. And that will bring prices down for all health insurance consumers. In theory.
 
Displayed 50 of 333 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 »






Report