Healthcare Reform dealt yet another strike
How soon till repeal and/or it goes before the Supreme Court?
Should wholesale changes start being made in order to rescue it?
Hey this is good news right? Clearly mandatory car insurance is also violating my rights. When can I cancel?
Meh…
All they have to do is tax you (clearly within their purview) then give you a tax deduction of the same amount if you own insurance.
Just makes the system needlessly complex but hey! At least no one is “forcing” you to buy insurance anymore!
All who has to do? Who is passing this piece of tax legislation?
When you sell your car. You could only cancel the Obamacare mandate when you died. See the difference?
And yes. This is good news indeed.
No. Could you explain it?
I know where you think you’re going with this, but it’s not at all the same thing. If you don’t want to pay for car insurance you can walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or even throw out your thumb. The point is that you have options.
When you are compelled to buy something, that option is gone. It is a tax. Now, had they gone and treated it as such I don’t see how they could have found it unconstitutional, but I am not a lawyer. In any event, this isn’t over. There’s plenty of time to have this sorted out.
While I can see the amusement factor for some, in the great scheme of things this is completely irrelevant. Something this important was never going to be settled at the District Court level. And the decisions that the court made were decisions of law, not fact. They’ll be reviewed de novo by the Circuit Court. It really doesn’t make a difference.
I phrased it poorly (although Congress could…not that they would with the current crop).
I meant that if the government had done it as a tax there’d be zero anyone could do in the way of suing the government. The government could arrange the tax to have the exact same effect the current legislation does.
Even more laughable is the people who get bent out of shape about this are already paying. When someone without insurance shows up in the emergency room those of us with insurance pay the bill. You’d think conservatives would be happy to stop the freeloaders.
So people are really just arguing over what amounts to semantics. Arranged one way they are outraged, arranged another way they couldn’t say shit about it (as a legal matter), left alone and they are paying anyway (paying more at that). Repealing health care would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next ten years and leave tens of millions uninsured (according to the CBO).
Really it is just the usual knee-jerk, “I hate it if Obama likes it” crowd. Nevermind the realities of it. They will literally hurt themselves to spite Obama.
Why does someone have to bring up this idiotic idea in every thread about HCR?
Let me spell it out for you: The federal government is restricted in what it can do in ways that the states are not. HCR is a federal law, not a state law.
Besides, you don’t have to own a car and the requirement to carry insurance is a requirement to operate your vehicle on state roads and to have insurance against damage you might cause to others.
Please, let’s not have to rehash this over and over again. There’s not “gotcha” here.
This again? Still?! STILL?!!! Look, if you don’t want to buy car insurance, don’t buy a car. It’s really that simple.
There is no analogy you can use because their is no other instance of the federal government requiring you to buy a product.
On review, I see others have dealt with this, as well. Thank goodness.
Supreme Court will overturn it.
On what grounds? What’s the rationale?
If you want to compare auto insurance to Obamacare, here’s the way it would have to work: everyone would have to buy auto insurance even if they don’t have a car in order to cover the damage caused by those who do.
(I posted this in another thread a few days ago but since it applies here hope the crossposting is ok)
For the analogy to be better we’d have to pretend that owning a car was a fact of life. If you are a human being, you have a car.
The fact of being alive means you are susceptible to getting injured. It makes no difference how carefully you live your life, everyone is capable of being injured/getting sick. Most, indeed practically all, people will avail themselves of health care at some point in their life and there is no way to guess ahead of time whether they will need $500 of health service in their life or $500,000.
If that person opts out of the health insurance then you and I are left paying the bill and that person gets a free ride. The only other alternative is to card everyone seeking healthcare and if they cannot prove they are insured (or can otherwise pay) they are turned away at the door and left to die on the street (or more interestingly you can pay (say) $5,000 out-of-pocket and when that is up the hospital wheels you to the street and dumps you on the curb regardless of what state you are in).
For clarity’s sake, this recent ruling struck down the entire law. One other federal judge rulings only struck down the mandatory insurance provision.
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost
Of course, a different media outlet has a different report on the same ruling:
A Washington Post report as many as 129 million people under 65 have “pre-existing” medical conditions that health insureers will claim to deny. There is also a report (no cite) claiming that the ability to conceive a child is a pre-existing condition as well. Perhaps these federal judge rulings are silver clouds. Congress may have its back to the wall if health insurers claim practically everything is a pre-existing condition and deny heath coverage to everyone without the health care law in place.
Cause that’s totally the way it was before 2009.
But that’s your problem right there. Your asking people to pretend something is true that isn’t. I agree with you that is makes the analogy better, but half of it is rooted in fantasy land. You might as well craft an analogy using the Munchkins of Oz, neither have any bearing on reality. Fact is millions and millions of people choose to not have a car and suffer the expenses that go along with ownership—including buying insurance… I was one of them for some of the time I lived in Manhattan.
That would makes sense since we were told time and again that the mandate was the lynchpin of the whole healthcare reform.
I find it comical that people here still try to defend the mandate while the administration is trying to defend it in court—as a tax! Which Obama argued up and down that it was not! :rolleyes:
For those declaring the healthcare mandate unconstitutional, can you please clarify for me what part of the constitution you claim this violates? I don’t recall anywhere a statement saying that Congress shall make no law that levies a penalty if a citizen fails to buy something. Is it just a vague feeling that the constitution protects my freedom to do what I want? Or is it the “powers not otherwise stated are reserved for the states” clause which has been largely ignored by placing everything under the commerce clause?