|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 11:36 AM Original message |
is the "private mandate" to buy health insurance unconstitutional? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
elleng (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 11:43 AM Response to Original message |
1. Since we haven't seen it, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hughee99 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 11:45 AM Response to Original message |
2. The "unfunded mandate", it's not just for state and local governments anymore. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 11:52 AM Response to Reply #2 |
4. i already heard about complaints from a similar law in massachusetts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hughee99 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:35 PM Response to Reply #4 |
8. I live in MA and that's exactly right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
debbierlus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 02:45 PM Response to Reply #8 |
26. That is the problem, people don't realize what a bogus bill of goods they selling |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
brentspeak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 04:12 PM Response to Reply #8 |
38. What you wrote should be made into a giant billboard and displayed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stray cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 11:48 AM Response to Original message |
3. Not treating you if you get sick would be constitutional - but better? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:05 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. of course i'm not advocating leaving the system as is. i want everyone covered. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
earth mom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:00 PM Response to Reply #5 |
15. That's exactly what should happen-through income taxes. Anything else is b.s. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
inna (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:22 PM Response to Reply #15 |
20. +1. Universal Health Care for all - funded by progressive taxation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Romulox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:09 PM Response to Original message |
6. Whatever the SCOTUS says is Constitutional is Constitutional. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:14 PM Response to Original message |
7. 99% of what federal govt does these days is unconstitutional... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:54 PM Response to Reply #7 |
13. you're not far off about the commerce clause |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:02 PM Response to Reply #13 |
16. Commerce clause does apply even if you chose to not participate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Lane (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 02:41 PM Response to Reply #16 |
25. Before you go bashing the Commerce Clause, consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:41 PM Response to Original message |
9. if it is unconstitutional, we don't have to buy car insurance either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:48 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. no, that's different |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
yurbud (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 02:47 PM Response to Reply #10 |
27. try living with out a car in California (or any other state in the West) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:13 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. i fully appreciate how much of the country is dependent on cars |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Matariki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:53 PM Response to Reply #9 |
12. That is such a faulted argument, you can't be serious. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ddeclue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:33 PM Response to Reply #12 |
22. No - it's actually quite correct. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Matariki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:11 PM Response to Reply #22 |
28. No, it's actually quite ridiculous. And obviously so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Matariki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:51 PM Response to Original message |
11. I asked the same question here last week. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 12:55 PM Response to Reply #11 |
14. amen! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
shimmergal (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:10 PM Response to Reply #11 |
17. Yes! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:23 PM Response to Reply #17 |
21. Precedent is pretty strong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ddeclue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:37 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. I don't think applies - people aren't growing a substitute by not purchasing healthcare. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:43 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. The substitute is paying cash. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:20 PM Response to Reply #24 |
30. the precedent in wickard v filburn was not inaction. he chose to grow wheat. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:25 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. Ignore health care completely. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Romulox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:30 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. The legal question does not hinge on "action vs. inaction" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 04:08 PM Response to Reply #33 |
36. i'm talking about inaction in participating in a commercial market, not in complying with a law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Romulox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 04:23 PM Response to Reply #36 |
39. Right. And the Court has ruled that NOT buying wheat (marijuana) affects the interstate market |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 05:44 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. if it's done through the tax code, then it's legal, though it may miss some people |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ddeclue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:40 PM Response to Reply #24 |
34. No that's a consumer choice to fail to buy a product they deem unacceptable to them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
paulsby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:15 PM Response to Reply #11 |
18. yea |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
paulsby (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 01:15 PM Response to Reply #11 |
19. yea |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
andym (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:29 PM Response to Original message |
32. The answer is it depends how they do it. But it can be made clearly constitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Obamanaut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 03:52 PM Response to Original message |
35. I'm still puzzled as to how the president can tell companies whom they |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
unblock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 04:11 PM Response to Reply #35 |
37. they're only doing that for companies that the government has taken over |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TxRider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Sep-17-09 05:47 PM Response to Original message |
41. Quite possibly, you can bet it will be challenged. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:56 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC