(02-24-2011 03:08 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 02:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I believe two people with opposing views can still love America.

Of course, so why are you supporting a law that says I MUST love it in the same way you do... by buying health insurance if I choose not to?

Do you in fact have health insurance?

Immaterial question. Do you drive a car? It's called choice.

Personally, as a fairly healthy family member, I prefer an indemnity policy where major medical is covered, but I'm out of pocket for most preventive care and well-checks... and i use doctors and clinics of my choice... but that is going to be "illegal" soon. I say illegal, because I would be fined for carrying that policy. My wife doesn't need care for pregnancies, neither does my son or I. My daughter might at some point, but not now. Of course, I'm probably going to have to carry coverage for that soon, NOT because I need it, but because the government needs my money for that coverage to cover OTHER people.

and FTR, everyone who pays into Medicaid/Medicare HAS some insurance... or at least we're TOLD we do... but we need to buy this other policy anyway

(02-24-2011 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:08 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 02:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I believe two people with opposing views can still love America.

Of course, so why are you supporting a law that says I MUST love it in the same way you do... by buying health insurance if I choose not to?

Do you in fact have health insurance?

Immaterial question. Do you drive a car? It's called choice.

Personally, as a fairly healthy family member, I prefer an indemnity policy where major medical is covered, but I'm out of pocket for most preventive care and well-checks... and i use doctors and clinics of my choice... but that is going to be "illegal" soon. I say illegal, because I would be fined for carrying that policy. My wife doesn't need care for pregnancies, neither does my son or I. My daughter might at some point, but not now. Of course, I'm probably going to have to carry coverage for that soon, NOT because I need it, but because the government needs my money for that coverage to cover OTHER people.

and FTR, everyone who pays into Medicaid/Medicare HAS some insurance... or at least we're TOLD we do... but we need to buy this other policy anyway

As long as I'm not paying for someone else's medical services because they didn't buy insurance and can't pay for the services themselves, I'm fine with it.

(02-24-2011 06:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:08 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 02:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I believe two people with opposing views can still love America.

Of course, so why are you supporting a law that says I MUST love it in the same way you do... by buying health insurance if I choose not to?

Do you in fact have health insurance?

Immaterial question. Do you drive a car? It's called choice.

Personally, as a fairly healthy family member, I prefer an indemnity policy where major medical is covered, but I'm out of pocket for most preventive care and well-checks... and i use doctors and clinics of my choice... but that is going to be "illegal" soon. I say illegal, because I would be fined for carrying that policy. My wife doesn't need care for pregnancies, neither does my son or I. My daughter might at some point, but not now. Of course, I'm probably going to have to carry coverage for that soon, NOT because I need it, but because the government needs my money for that coverage to cover OTHER people.

and FTR, everyone who pays into Medicaid/Medicare HAS some insurance... or at least we're TOLD we do... but we need to buy this other policy anyway

As long as I'm not paying for someone else's medical services because they didn't buy insurance and can't pay for the services themselves, I'm fine with it.

We pay for it either way. Health insurance reform was demonized with talk of socialized medicine and death panels which is just good politics on the right but the legislation will ultimately be good for our economy and our people

(02-24-2011 08:00 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  We pay for it either way. Health insurance reform was demonized with talk of socialized medicine and death panels which is just good politics on tright but the legislation will ultimately be good for our economy and our people

The claims you deride as "demonization" are in fact valid criticisms. We'll find out, hopefully soon enough to abort this disaster and head in a sensible direction. The only way this will be a good thing is if it becomes obvious that it totally worthless soon enough that we can kill it and go instead to something that isn't worthless.

Our previously-existing health care system had flaws. But the existence of those flaws does not mean Obamacare is good. Obamacare moves us in the direction of two systems which are themselves deeply flawed--Canada's single-payer and UK's single-provider. They are so deeply flawed that both UK and Canada are in the process of dismantling significant portions of them.

If you want change for the better, copy something that works--like France or Germany or Holland, which are neither single-payer nor single-provider.

(02-24-2011 09:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 08:00 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  We pay for it either way. Health insurance reform was demonized with talk of socialized medicine and death panels which is just good politics on tright but the legislation will ultimately be good for our economy and our people

The claims you deride as "demonization" are in fact valid criticisms. We'll find out, hopefully soon enough to abort this disaster and head in a sensible direction. The only way this will be a good thing is if it becomes obvious that it totally worthless soon enough that we can kill it and go instead to something that isn't worthless.

Our previously-existing health care system had flaws. But the existence of those flaws does not mean Obamacare is good. Obamacare moves us in the direction of two systems which are themselves deeply flawed--Canada's single-payer and UK's single-provider. They are so deeply flawed that both UK and Canada are in the process of dismantling significant portions of them.

If you want change for the better, copy something that works--like France or Germany or Holland, which are neither single-payer nor single-provider.

The Affordable Care Act has a long way to in order to be perfect but it is far from "socialized medicine" and death panels just flat out don't exist.

(02-24-2011 09:37 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  The Affordable Care Act has a long way to in order to be perfect but it is far from "socialized medicine" and death panels just flat out don't exist.

Nice job of regurgitating. Obviously you learned your talking points well. Just as obviously, you either a) haven't read the bill, or b) are not familiar with how health care systems work worldwide.

Obamacare was pushed by people who make it no secret that they want single-payer (the ultimate "socialized medicine," far worse than even single-provider) and openly discuss their expectation that it will take years of incremental change to get there. In that context, it is only logical to infer that they see Obamacare as step one on the road there. It will prove to be unworkable on many fronts. I believe that is intentional, that it's meant not to work, in order to create incentive to take the next step toward the socialist goal.

As for the death panels, just wait until the pressure to control costs kicks in. As CBO noted, there is nothing in Obamacare to suggest that costs can be reduced without significant reductions in quality.

I only hope we wake up before we get there.

Bringing this back around to the ruling, this judge actually ruled that mental activity could be regulated by congress. The implications of a ruling like that are immense.

(02-24-2011 10:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bringing this back around to the ruling, this judge actually ruled that mental activity could be regulated by congress. The implications of a ruling like that are immense.

This Judge's mental activity should be regulated by congress.

(02-24-2011 10:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bringing this back around to the ruling, this judge actually ruled that mental activity could be regulated by congress. The implications of a ruling like that are immense.

It would mean that the idea of limited, constitutional government -- which has already been confined to the political ICU since the 1960s -- would be officially dead and buried. None of us living today would survive to see it come back again in this country.

(02-25-2011 01:03 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 10:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bringing this back around to the ruling, this judge actually ruled that mental activity could be regulated by congress. The implications of a ruling like that are immense.

It would mean that the idea of limited, constitutional government -- which has already been confined to the political ICU since the 1960s -- would be officially dead and buried. None of us living today would survive to see it come back again in this country.

Yes, if they supreme court decides it's okay, then the constitution is meaningless as the Federal Gov't would have the power to make you do anything.

(02-25-2011 08:27 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Yes, if the supreme court decides it's okay, then the constitution is meaningless as the Federal Gov't would have the power to make you do anything.

Pretty much so, yes.

Several of the Anti-Federalists prophesied this general state of affairs. It's interesting how, over time, their opponents have gone from claiming, in essence (before ratification), "Don't be ridiculous! The Federal Government will never be that powerful! And if it ever is, your state can just back-out and be independent again" to claiming, in essence (long after ratification)...

"Yeah, you were right. The Federal Government really DID become that powerful, even though you were promised it wouldn't, and ratification was overwhelmingly based on that promise. But hey, life is more complex these days, and we need a government that can change with the times and respond to new challenges. You can't expect us to be bound forever by the opinions of a bunch of dead white guys from 200+ years ago. Except the opinion to ratify the Constitution. You're stuck with that, forever and ever, whether you like it or not, even though it turned out to be a 'living Constitution' that requires -- yeah, REQUIRES -- legal acceptance of 'gay marriage' and other weird sh*t that we haven't gotten around to yet. Madison and Washington and their crew woulda understood, LOL. And if they wouldn't? Eh, whatever. Like I said, we're not bound by them or what they said. Except for that ratification-thing. Otherwise, you'd be dishonoring the Constitution. And I won't have that, because I love the Constitution, as long as me and my friends get to say what it means."

(02-24-2011 12:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 12:13 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Health insurance will certainly fit under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause

The purchasing of it. Absolutely. The not purchasing of it, not so much.

So you would argue that Congress has the right under the commerce clause to force every American to buy American made products?

Quote:and this will be upheld in the courts.

Well, two courts have already struck it down. Ultimately the Supreme Court will decide. And given it's current makeup, the chances of it beign struck down are far greater than it being upheld.

So what you are saying is the Supreme Court will knock down "Obaamacare" because they are activist judges that will legislate from the bench.

(02-24-2011 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:08 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 03:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 02:23 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  I believe two people with opposing views can still love America.

Of course, so why are you supporting a law that says I MUST love it in the same way you do... by buying health insurance if I choose not to?

Do you in fact have health insurance?

Immaterial question. Do you drive a car? It's called choice.

Personally, as a fairly healthy family member, I prefer an indemnity policy where major medical is covered, but I'm out of pocket for most preventive care and well-checks... and i use doctors and clinics of my choice... but that is going to be "illegal" soon. I say illegal, because I would be fined for carrying that policy. My wife doesn't need care for pregnancies, neither does my son or I. My daughter might at some point, but not now. Of course, I'm probably going to have to carry coverage for that soon, NOT because I need it, but because the government needs my money for that coverage to cover OTHER people.

and FTR, everyone who pays into Medicaid/Medicare HAS some insurance... or at least we're TOLD we do... but we need to buy this other policy anyway

You are already covering other people.

(02-25-2011 01:03 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 10:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bringing this back around to the ruling, this judge actually ruled that mental activity could be regulated by congress. The implications of a ruling like that are immense.

It would mean that the idea of limited, constitutional government -- which has already been confined to the political ICU since the 1960s -- would be officially dead and buried. None of us living today would survive to see it come back again in this country.

Authorizing regulation of mental activity would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set--far more dangerous than any thing contained in Obamacare itself. And considering that Obamacare means we will pay more for worse health care, it sets the danger bar pretty high.

(02-27-2011 01:50 AM)RobertN Wrote:  So what you are saying is the Supreme Court will knock down "Obaamacare" because they are activist judges that will legislate from the bench.

Welcome back Robert, see you're as sharp as ever.

Legislating from the bench would mean they are making law from the bench. For example, Roe v. Wade was legislating from the bench.

Obamacare is an existing law on which a question of constitutionality will be decided.

Kind of difficult to legislate from the bench when ruling on a law that has already been, you know, legislated.

(02-27-2011 01:50 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-24-2011 12:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Well, two courts have already struck it down. Ultimately the Supreme Court will decide. And given it's current makeup, the chances of it beign struck down are far greater than it being upheld.

So what you are saying is the Supreme Court will knock down "Obaamacare" because they are activist judges that will legislate from the bench.

I don't think that is what Niner said, but if it is, so what? If we start from the premise that striking down a law -- any law -- is the essence of "judicial activism", then the Clinton-appointed justices on the Supreme Court have been far, FAR more "activist" than the GOP-appointed justices have been. Obviously, Kagan and Sotomayor are just starting, but GInsburg and Breyer have been deepl "activist" by that definition.

(02-27-2011 02:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

'Hambone10 Wrote:Immaterial question. Do you drive a car? It's called choice.

Personally, as a fairly healthy family member, I prefer an indemnity policy where major medical is covered, but I'm out of pocket for most preventive care and well-checks... and i use doctors and clinics of my choice... but that is going to be "illegal" soon. I say illegal, because I would be fined for carrying that policy. My wife doesn't need care for pregnancies, neither does my son or I. My daughter might at some point, but not now. Of course, I'm probably going to have to carry coverage for that soon, NOT because I need it, but because the government needs my money for that coverage to cover OTHER people.

and FTR, everyone who pays into Medicaid/Medicare HAS some insurance... or at least we're TOLD we do... but we need to buy this other policy anyway

You are already covering other people.

Wow, you HAVE been away...

Yes... I already cover other people through Medicaid/Medicare. NOW I am being asked to pay for them again... not through taxes, but through an insurance policy I wouldn't otherwise choose for myself, but I HAVE to choose it to take care of others.

While I have plenty of specific issues with Obamacare and have stated them many times... I don't generally have a problem with Medicare/Medicaid and encouraging people who currently wait for things to get bad and then go to the emergency room rather than do preventative care to stop that... what I have a problem with is being told that not only do I need to pay for it, but I need to make choices in my OWN care that don't benefit me... because "society" knows what I need better than I do.

I don't understand why I can be an exception to Obamacare for religious reasons, but apparently NOT for fiscal or practical/personal reasons. How does that sit with you?

(02-27-2011 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2011 02:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

'Hambone10 Wrote:Immaterial question. Do you drive a car? It's called choice.

Personally, as a fairly healthy family member, I prefer an indemnity policy where major medical is covered, but I'm out of pocket for most preventive care and well-checks... and i use doctors and clinics of my choice... but that is going to be "illegal" soon. I say illegal, because I would be fined for carrying that policy. My wife doesn't need care for pregnancies, neither does my son or I. My daughter might at some point, but not now. Of course, I'm probably going to have to carry coverage for that soon, NOT because I need it, but because the government needs my money for that coverage to cover OTHER people.

and FTR, everyone who pays into Medicaid/Medicare HAS some insurance... or at least we're TOLD we do... but we need to buy this other policy anyway

You are already covering other people.

Wow, you HAVE been away...

Yes... I already cover other people through Medicaid/Medicare. NOW I am being asked to pay for them again... not through taxes, but through an insurance policy I wouldn't otherwise choose for myself, but I HAVE to choose it to take care of others.

While I have plenty of specific issues with Obamacare and have stated them many times... I don't generally have a problem with Medicare/Medicaid and encouraging people who currently wait for things to get bad and then go to the emergency room rather than do preventative care to stop that... what I have a problem with is being told that not only do I need to pay for it, but I need to make choices in my OWN care that don't benefit me... because "society" knows what I need better than I do.

I don't understand why I can be an excpetion to Obamacare for religious reasons, but apparently NOT for fiscal or practical/personal reasons. How does that sit with you?

You are paying for non-insured people therough your current health plan.

(02-27-2011 04:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  You are paying for non-insured people therough your current health plan.

Note that can only happen if those non-insured people are getting health care. If so, then we don't need Obamacare for them to get health care.

Either the law will be struck down or there will be a war. It is really that simple.