ObamaCare comes up before the Supreme Court today
xmacro
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 3,402
3 days/8 hrs of oral arguments - a case hasn't had this much time alloted to it in decades.
For those who wanna watch it, most of the major networks should be covering it, but it will be intermittent since no camera's are allowed inside.
For those who wanna watch it, most of the major networks should be covering it, but it will be intermittent since no camera's are allowed inside.
Comments
Oral arguments begin over the mandate tomorrow
Its unconstitutional to bust Macro's balls ??? Damn Mac , your a pretty powerful dude ! ( Snaps to attention and salutes ; ) ) ...
I keed I keed... i hope...
For the record, I think the individual mandate will be upheld, because both health care and insurance are unique capital markets that cross all State lines (qualifying for inclusion under the commerce clause) and involves everyone who lives in the US. Healthcare isn't like any other market, because hospitals cannot refuse service to sick people, and insurance requires the healthy to be covered in order to make it affordable for those who actually need the coverage.
If I am starving, and without money, and I go to a grocery store or resturant, they are not required to feed me. However, hospitals ARE required to care for me if I show up at an emergency room, thus driving up costs for everyone else if I do not have health insurance. I also believe the mandate will be upheld with restrictions and qualifications that prevent the government from extending it to other markets.
There are only two other options (to the individual mandate) that will "solve" our healthcare delima; 1) A "single-payer" system that would cover everyone, without requiring anyone to purchase insurance, or 2) Removing the burden of universal care from hospitals, allowing them to refuse service to sick people if they cannot pay. I would not want to live in a society that did this.
Personally, I find the individual mandate to be the best possible solution, which is why so many conservatives were for it before they were against it (after the Devil incarnate - Mr. Obama - chose it over the public option). It solves the problem while requiring personal responsibility and reliance on existing capital markets instead of the other two options. It is a market-based solution, and we know it works because of the auto insurance model. That's why the Heritage Foundation came up with it in the first place.
you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them.
never has violation of rights been "practical"
The government is not the solution to this problem with the individual mandate; the insurance market and individual personal responsibility are the solutions. That's why conservatives originally proposed the individual mandate, and were solidly behind it until Mr. Obama decided to use it. Now it's "totalitarian". Was it "totalitarian" when the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole, and nearly every single member of the Republican Congress (under Clinton) endorsed it?
The only reason I see for this opposition to something that most conservatives were originally for is pure and simple hatred of President Obama, and an obsession with opposing ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING he proposes. I see it as being more about insuring that Mr. Obama fails than with pragmatically dealing with a complex problem that badly needs fixing. In other words, opposition to the individual mandate is political, and does not consider either the facts of the proposal, or the history of the proposal, or the problems that will be caused if a solution to out healthcare system is solved.
i mean, im sure you can agree that there are many conservative ideas that violate the rights of the individual.