Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

PrezBO is failing on his own accord - he and his left wing nuts are failures just like you.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

What the Constitutions means is decided by courts

that argument did not work when the Bishops claimed that they and only they got to decide what the Bible says, nor does it work now.

Fortunately, the founding fathers did not take such a Protestant approach in determining who gets to interpret the law.

Quote:

I see them as a valid infringement on individual freedom, imposed upon us all in order to safeguard the broader and more substantial rights of everyone who uses these roads.

I might agree with this argument. It may be valid to make illegal items that make breaking the law easier. What about police band radios? There are many examples.

Police band radios can serve legitimate or neutral purposes. It would need to be shown that potential harm from the illegitimate usage of these devices greatly outweighs the benefit (which includes the pleasure it can bring a user to simply listen to these calls). There are many examples of what? Devices that have no legitimate purpose (radar detectors) or devices which have legitimate purposes but can be used to serve illegitimate intent? And what does it mean (in the context of your argument) that there are many examples?

I think the real discussion in this health care debate should be about the 'real' problem of the uninsured in health care.

Fair enough, but you are the one who brought up the Virginia radar detector topic; with the intent of providing evidence for your claim concerning hypocrisy on the right. It's a bit disingenuous to now affect the image of someone attempting to focus the discussion on the core issue.

Who pays their bill when they show up at the ER? The answer is - all the rest of us. Is it reasonable to deny them service when they do, because they don't have the ability to pay?

Reasonable?

Certainly.

If services are not paid for, services will not be provided. It is not unreasonable to refuse to serve food to someone who tells you they cannot pay for it. It is not unreasonable, as a lawyer, to refuse to defend someone because they cannot pay for your services.

It's not a question of reason but of tolerance, and the ability to pay for the level of tolerance we feel good about.

If someone comes into an ER with a sore back but is refused treatment because he cannot pay for it, what will be the consequences? If it is a minor or moderate strain or sprain that is causing the pain, there will be no appreciable consequences. Even if the health facility agreed to see the person without charging them, there is nothing they could do to avoid any of the possible consequences. They might order an x-ray or even an MRI, and they might prescribe a muscle relaxer or pain killer, but they won't have prevented whatever consequences are possible from their refusing to provide treatment. As a society, we cannot tolerate the consequences of refusing treatment to this person?

On the other hand, if someone comes into an ER with a gaping wound in his stomach and is refused treatment, we can pretty easily identify severe consequences. One of those consequences might be death. It is clear that as a society we will not tolerate such a consequence.

Now, it’s all well and good for us to say we won't tolerate a person dying because they don't have the money to pay for medical treatment, but unless we can find enough doctors to treat these patients pro bono, in facilities that real estate owners donate and with equipment and medication that manufacturers provide for free, someone is going to have to pay for the care.

(Even in the "no cost" case, though, I would argue that we are paying for the care, because all of these donors will need to pass on at least some of their costs to their paying customers )

Who gets to decide our level of tolerance?

Presumably we do, or at least a majority of us does through our elected representatives.

What our elected representatives with the assistance of a free press should be doing is providing information to us so that a) We will understand the cost and consequences of the levels that are possible to set b) Help us decide upon the proper level

"If you want to set the level so low that even the guy with only a sore back gets free treatment, this is what it will cost."

"If you want to set the level so high that only obviously life threatening conditions are treated for free, here are the consequences."

Did this happen with Obamacare?


We force people to buy automobile insurance. We avoid the same argument because we say it is voluntary to drive or own a car, which is obviously true. But we still punish those who drive uninsured. Can we not punish those who show up at the ER uninsured? Give them medical treatment and then it's off to jail, for failure to have medical insurance?

Yes, we could do that, but it the rare person who goes to jail because of not having auto liability insurance. Instead they are fined so they can take the money they might have used to pay for insurance and give it to the government.

It seems to me that the only good solution to this whole mess is single option, government health care. Taxes provide highways for all of us to use, even though many don't own a car. Taxes provide defense, whether or not we agree with its use. Why not health care? Isn't it something provided for the greater good?

However the US government doesn't have access to a bottomless well of wealth. What you advocate costs a lot of money. Right now that cost is spread throughout numerous sources (including the government). A single payer system will result in a single source of funding - tax dollars.

You can choose to believe the "experts" who have testified for Obamacare and would testify in support of a single payer system that if done properly, the approach can pay for itself through the elimination of fraud, waste and abuse. If you do, you also probably believe that there is a city in the Himalayas where the Fountain of Youth can be found.

You can choose to believe those who argue that since the system cannot possibly be paid for through the elimination of stupid and nasty influences on healthcare, you will have to reduce the level of services provided and ration them based on criteria established by a bureaucracy. Of course you don't want to believe that because its creepy and so you will probably demonize those who suggest it and start screaming "Sarah Palin!" and "Death Panels!" whenever anyone brings it up.

If it is unconstitutional to force folks to buy health insurance then I'm done paying property taxes.

Unfortunately it is not unconstitutional for the government to force you to pay taxes. Opponents of Obamacare agree completely with the president when he vociferously argued that the Mandate was not a tax.

Did this happen with Obamacare?

Quote:

PrezBO is failing on his own accord - he and his left wing nuts are failures just like you.

We will never know if he would fail on his own accord. He's not getting that chance.

Quote:

Did this happen with Obamacare?

Snort. Your side prevented this from happening, with a never-ending stream of lies and bullshit, designed to prevent any real debate or discussion about the underlying issue. It was the entire game-plan for the Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

The Democrats decided for us what the level should be, and then told us to shut up and trust them.

The Democrats decided for us what the level should be, and then told us to shut up and trust them.

In any case they couldn't even tell us what the level they picked for us amounted to.

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

You and Cyclo need to have your sinuses checked out.

can we quit calling it Obamacare?

The right only want's to make it fail to make Obama look bad.

Conservatives argue that the Courts should give deference to the legislature when it comes to laws. But that is quickly forgotten when they don't like the law. And the other side does the same thing. As Joe said, it's all about whose ox is getting gored.

As far as those who drive without insurance, there may be a few in jail, for driving without a license as a result of no insurance.

Throughout the discussion, I notice you never specify liability insurance and just use the word 'insurance'. Do you feel this strengthens your arguement?