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 04:07:48 PM
put that in your tricorn hat and smoke it, teabaggers!
 
2012-03-28 04:13:12 PM
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.
 
2012-03-28 04:14:59 PM

fickle floridian: 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.


the rejoinder to that is the fact that everyone will consume health care at some point in their lives.
 
2012-03-28 04:16:30 PM
Einer Elhauge is Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard and the founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center in Health Law Policy. He joined an amicus brief arguing that the mandate is constitutional...

I guess they'll just let any old schmuck write for The Daily Beast nowadays huh?
 
2012-03-28 04:18:20 PM

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


I think the precedent they are focusing on is a Federal mandate of some sort, rather than the specifics of the mandate itself.

Not sure how exactly it will apply here, but that's what I got out of it.
 
2012-03-28 04:24:12 PM
Social security is a mandated insurance program.
 
2012-03-28 04:29:24 PM

Ambivalence: Social security is a mandated insurance program.


Luckily for the conservative justices, they have a few months to figure out how to kick Obama in the nuts without bringing down SS and Medicare.
 
2012-03-28 04:34:28 PM
Yeah, but where is it in the Magna Carta?
 
2012-03-28 04:39:50 PM

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.
 
2012-03-28 04:40:29 PM
The focus here is on forcing citizens to purchase insurance, when in fact the difficulty is that they must purchase it from private companies. Had the law established a national health care provider that was funded by taxes, it would have been as legal as Social Security, which essentially forces citizens to purchase a pension, but not from a private company. However, a law of that kind would have led to a possible collapse, and the certain mayhem, of the health insurance industry. So powerful an interest could not allow it to be seriously considered. Now that same interest, and the fools it drives as its beasts of burden, seek to destroy the law even in its current form.
 
2012-03-28 04:44:45 PM

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.
 
2012-03-28 04:46:54 PM
George Washington was a RINO.

/yes, I know he pre-dated the GOP
 
2012-03-28 04:47:40 PM

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


Social Security is an income tax. That's what makes it different.
 
2012-03-28 04:48:27 PM

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


Please cite the portion of the constitution which makes this distinction.
 
2012-03-28 04:50:15 PM

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.


lolwut
 
2012-03-28 04:51:36 PM

Ambivalence: Social security is a mandated insurance program.


It's a tax.
 
2012-03-28 04:52:25 PM

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.


Really?
 
2012-03-28 04:52:46 PM

FlashHarry: fickle floridian: 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.

the rejoinder to that is the fact that everyone will consume health care at some point in their lives.


It's the 21st Century. At some point, everyone will also consume motorized travel.
 
2012-03-28 04:53:57 PM

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.
 
2012-03-28 04:54:42 PM

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

Please cite the portion of the constitution which makes this distinction.


I was just snarkily repeating the oft-heard argument.
 
2012-03-28 04:57:16 PM

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

Social Security is an income tax. That's what makes it different.


It is presently. How would it work if it was privatized?

It doesn't really matter, though. What would really drive the opinion would be which party implemented it. If the Dems privatized SS, you can bet the R's would be all upset about it being unconstitutional.
 
2012-03-28 04:57:46 PM

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.
 
2012-03-28 05:00:28 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.


Color me shocked.
 
2012-03-28 05:02:21 PM

fickle floridian: 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.


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.

Militia Act of 1792 (new window)
 
2012-03-28 05:03:37 PM

TheDumbBlonde: 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.

Color me shocked.


Stop stalking me in threads!
 
2012-03-28 05:04:29 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.


Are you aware at all of the current controversy?
 
2012-03-28 05:07:39 PM

Humean_Nature: And last I checked, there's no government-sponsored provider of firearms for public buyers.


The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) sells used rifles to the public.

Not really related to anything, just couldn't help mention it.
 
2012-03-28 05:12:54 PM

jbuist: Humean_Nature: And last I checked, there's no government-sponsored provider of firearms for public buyers.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) sells used rifles to the public.

Not really related to anything, just couldn't help mention it.


I love the CMP philosophy! Is it government a government agency, though? It looks like it's a privately-held nonprofit. I'm talking like you go to the Post Office to send mail with the government, then you go to the social security office to get retirement/disability funds from the government, and then you go to the Department of Firearms and get a pistol from the government.
 
2012-03-28 05:14:17 PM

Humean_Nature: Is it government a government agency, though?


Bah. Stupid keyboard. This thing is broken.
 
2012-03-28 05:22:25 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.


All the more reason to have single payer health insurance. BRILLIANT!
 
2012-03-28 05:52:24 PM

gerrymander: It's the 21st Century. At some point, everyone will also consume motorized travel.


but not everyone will buy a motorized vehicle.

/my brother is 30 and has never learned to drive
//he lives in switzerland and uses public transport
///CSB
 
2012-03-28 07:09:21 PM
So let's compromise. Bring back the law that requires everyone to purchase a gun, then you can get all of the healthcare you need for free.

Hey Doc... take out my appendix or eat lead!
 
2012-03-28 07:11:51 PM

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.
 
2012-03-28 07:17:48 PM
So which state will be the first to be sued for mandatory auto insurance?
 
2012-03-28 07:20:34 PM
At this point, it's far easier to just single out the naysayers and shame them for having no compassion for their fellow Americans.

If you are against any kind of national health care, you are part of the problem this society is facing.
 
2012-03-28 07:20:47 PM
Maybe this means they will do away with all of the itemized deductions on tax forms because they are really just penalties for the people who don't qualify for them. Down with the Homeowner Mandate!
 
2012-03-28 07:21:27 PM

FlashHarry: put that in your tricorn hat and smoke it, teabaggers!


a.scpr.org

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 smoking something, that's for sure.
 
2012-03-28 07:26:55 PM

Soup4Bonnie: FlashHarry: put that in your tricorn hat and smoke it, teabaggers!

[a.scpr.org image 620x413]

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 smoking something, that's for sure.


It looks more like the slap-print she's all but clamoring for.
 
2012-03-28 07:27:42 PM

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


Actually, a slight quibble there. Under PPACA, you have to buy insurance. Or pay the penalty/tax. Or be exempt for religious reasons. Or exempt for being in the lower 1/3 or so of incomes.

But, nothing in the law says you have to buy it from a private party. You have the option to buy it from the state exchange. Which may, depending on your state, include a state-run public option. Which at least one state (Vermont) is en route to enacting by the 2014 start date.
 
2012-03-28 07:29:32 PM
There are two options:
A) raise everyone's taxes by $400 and then provide a tax credit for people that show proof of health insurance

2) create a public option that provides a minimum level of care...Medicare for everyone

d) completely destroy the current legislation by removing the mandate, claim victory, and then wash our hands of the problems with health care insurance in America.

One of those is what should've happened. One of these is going to happen in June. And, one of these will be the result of destroying the current form of the law.

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 mean, unless they are stupid enough to expand a victory to the logical conclusion of destroying Medicare and social security.
 
2012-03-28 07:30:43 PM
Most of them owned slaves. Should we also bring back slavery? If we do, the first thing to go is the dunk contest.
 
2012-03-28 07:31:02 PM

bulldg4life: I mean, unless they are stupid enough to expand a victory to the logical conclusion of destroying Medicare and social security.


So you've seen the Ryan budget.
 
2012-03-28 07:33:53 PM
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!
 
2012-03-28 07:34:03 PM

bulldg4life: There are two options:
A) raise everyone's taxes by $400 and then provide a tax credit for people that show proof of health insurance

2) create a public option that provides a minimum level of care...Medicare for everyone

d) completely destroy the current legislation by removing the mandate, claim victory, and then wash our hands of the problems with health care insurance in America.

One of those is what should've happened. One of these is going to happen in June. And, one of these will be the result of destroying the current form of the law.

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 mean, unless they are stupid enough to expand a victory to the logical conclusion of destroying Medicare and social security.


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.
 
2012-03-28 07:35:23 PM
Your blog sucks
 
2012-03-28 07:36:17 PM
The liberal butthurt, while premature, is still glorious.
 
2012-03-28 07:37:58 PM

TheDumbBlonde: bulldg4life: There are two options:
A) raise everyone's taxes by $400 and then provide a tax credit for people that show proof of health insurance

2) create a public option that provides a minimum level of care...Medicare for everyone

d) completely destroy the current legislation by removing the mandate, claim victory, and then wash our hands of the problems with health care insurance in America.

One of those is what should've happened. One of these is going to happen in June. And, one of these will be the result of destroying the current form of the law.

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 mean, unless they are stupid enough to expand a victory to the logical conclusion of destroying Medicare and social security.

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.
 
2012-03-28 07:38:26 PM

Wendy's Chili: Ambivalence: Social security is a mandated insurance program.

Luckily for the conservative justices, they have a few months to figure out how to kick Obama in the nuts without bringing down SS and Medicare.


I expect them to carve out special reasons for why it is unconstitutional if they go that route to avoid angering the masses and the insurance companies (they don't want to cover old people, they're expensive!)

They may somehow rule it constitutional though.

The media has chosen the narrative, and it is the law as underdog facing a Big Bad.
 
2012-03-28 07:38:38 PM

Aarontology: 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.

lolwut


Its a party, and not everyone is invited. Duh.
 
2012-03-28 07:40:39 PM

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.
 
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