Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So if forced health care purchasing is unconstitutional, what about Romneycare in Mass.?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:36 PM
Original message
So if forced health care purchasing is unconstitutional, what about Romneycare in Mass.?
Does that have to be suspended, too?

What about any other tax penalties (or rewards?) that coerce behavior?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is going to crash in on the tea bagger's heads when it goes to the USSC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. How? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlimJimmy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's a clue. Massachusetts (one of the several states) (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. No one is forced to purchase health care. The issue is forced purchase of health INSURANCE.
I don't support it, but that's because I don't support the EXISTENCE of health "insurance".

SINGLE. PAYER. NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. distinction noted, but I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. States have different powers than the Federal govt.
MA may have it in their constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. ...but if it runs counter to something deemed "prohibited" in the U.S. Constitution...?
...should this ruling stand... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Did he say that it was prohibited in the constitution?
In his mind it's an issue of whether it is permitted (for the federal govt) rather than whether it's explicitly prohibited.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think he's saying it's specifically unconstitutional....
...though that's based on the preliminary reports I've been reading.

so I'm speculating on what it might mean if that perception is upheld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. prohibited to the federal government does not imply prohibited to the states
You are making an unsubstantiated leap there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdp349 Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Depends on the nature of unconstitutionality I think
if somehow a successful argument is made that appeals to the Bill of Rights then yeah, it would be struck down everywhere.

Otherwise the constitution generally defines the limits of the federal government.

You would have to otherwise appeal to the state constitution to strike down a state law I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. You actually make a good point here that most people miss.....
which is that this part of the Health Care Reform bill was Romney's idea, and he will most likely be the Republican front runner for the GOP for Pres in 2012.

With all the Repubes coming out so strongly against this, it will be really negative for him during the election when they are still complaining about Health Care. That takes this issue completely off the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yep, "RomneyCare". If he is the nominee, hang that sign around his neck
and let him defend it. Of course, any other Republican running against him in the primaries will do the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. When will the Govt send this to Supreme Court for a decision???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It could take some time.
It isn't common for the USSC to take a case that hasn't had a circuit court rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. What is this forced health care you speak of?
The mandate to purchase the for profit, criminal insurance cartel's "product"?

You do realize that the Federal government doesn't mandate such a purchase and the states only dictate it for active drivers, operating a vehicle, on their streets? You think we should be subject to purchasing a private and for profit product based on existing? My sister doesn't drive so she isn't mandated to buy insurance. I know plenty of others in similar situations. My other sister usually only drives for work and sometimes rents but she carries no policy herself.

The insurance mandate is to independently drive your own vehicle on public streets, you can even own a car with no coverage. The comparison is weak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

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