It is not dangerous, and it is not even a precedent. Are you seriously attempting to make an equivalency between the inconvenience of not owning a car, and the the very real consequences of untreated illness? Really?
This is so incredibly simplistic it’s actually painful. You might as well say “Bad government or good government, it’s still government.”
How about adding this to the back of all drivers licenses?
EMERGENCY CARE DIRECTIVES
You must check one or more of the following checkboxes:
[ul]
[li]I am an organ donor.[/li]
[li]I have medical insurance. (If this box is unchecked, refer to previous checkbox)[/li][/ul]
This. I swear – ask anyone who knows me – that I am VERY reluctant, as a rule, to ever ascribe anything to racist thinking. But after months of resisting this explanation, I have been forced to conclude that an underlying racist attitude must be an important driver behind what many people have said against “Obamacare”. This saddens me greatly. We’re not talking about something that can be quantified exactly, but the people I’m referring to seem to be around twenty percent of the electorate; that is, perhaps half of the people who are opposed to this health care reform bill.
Based on your posts, I have to disagree with you assessment of your own position on this matter. You contradict yourself that you are being forced to buy something you do not want, then you tell us that you want health insurance, which is what you were being forced to buy that you did not want.
You throw out arguments of such stunning cognitive dissonance, such as your attempt to equivocate automobiles with health care, that it seems your only purpose is to argue.
Quite frankly, I see impeachment (or at least the threat of it) as being SOP any time we have a two term president from now on.
You may be very careful, but that doesn’t mean everyone is. Other drivers could injure you in an accident, no matter how careful you yourself have been.
And cancer can pop up in anyone. There are certainly ways to reduce the chance of getting it, but nobody is 100% cancer-proof.
And then there’s age-related illness. You are aging, no? I really hope you never develop Alzheimer’s or have a stroke or fall and need a hip replacement. But again, you can’t know for sure that these things won’t happen.
As I understand it, there is a provision for people who can’t afford insurance to still get aid from the government. I could be wrong and someone else wo read the bill could correct me, but I think there is a provision for people under a certain income bracket to still get help without penalty.
Only if the President in question is a Democrat. If Bush demonstrated anything, it’s that there is essentially no limit to what a Republican President can do and just walk away unscathed.
You are correct. Most people who make under 50k a year will qualify for tax credits to help pay for the cost of insurance. In addition the new law also limits the amount that people with lower incomes can be charged to a certain %. Also, Catastrophic plans cost as little as 30.00 a month to keep and would thus keep you from having to pay the tax. Theoretically, with the tax credit you could pay for the whole coverage and possibly make a little money back on the deal assuming you don’t become ill as such plans carry very high deductibles and out of pocket costs. Either way, if you went with such a plan of action the gov. would basically pay for you to carry SOME insurance thus alleviating the costs of a catastrophic accident or major illness.
It does seem that way. Bush was much worse than Obama can ever hope to be.
The point is simple: there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to implement Obamacare, Social Security or Medicare. Period.
And fuck you and the horse you rode in on with that “in their ideal society the poor and sick would be left to die in the streets” bullshit. In an ideal society, even fucking morons like you would understand that it is not the government’s place to provide healthcare or social security.
Is that a Trifecta?
Wrong.
Dude, we’re not in the pit.
It’s the government’s place to ensure that health care is available. Just like they make sure that healthy food is available. Currently insurance companies don’t make health insurance available to millions of people. They make it impossible to purchase coverage for a large portion of the populace. The government’s job is to make sure that things like that are fixed.
Uhhh . . .
“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”
The irony of course is that the final bill that passed is a lot like the Republican health care plan they proposed as an alternative to Clinton’s plan back in 1993.
e.g.
Hopefully next time they get on the Hypocrisy Horse more people will notice.
Wrong, as pointed out.
:dubious: Um. You just denounced me for claiming exactly what you say in the very next sentence.
You’re not allowed to insult other posters in Great Debates, Clothahump. Don’t do this again.
http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=23
The debate linked above covers the legal wrangling over healthcare in good detail. I think it’s pretty clear Balkin is on the firmer terrain in regards to the modern jurisprudence for the tax and commerce clauses. If you combine that context, ie. decent controlling precedents, with the pro-business (cf. libertarian) nature of Alito and Scalia, I think you’ve got a fairly predictable majority against invalidating the mandate. That’s if, and it’s a big if, the states’ suits aren’t dismissed on standing or ripeness, etc., in any event.
He isn’t? Damn, that’s why I voted for him.