Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone but the most left liberal wants this law revoked.
If the Justices reverse it in part, there will still be a Republican majority to repeal the rest.
If it is approved, there will be an even bigger Republican majority to repeal it.
The big question is, will Republicans once elected repeal this law like Americans most all want them to?
It's not as if politicians pay much attention to the voters these days. Obama practically urinates on the American people daily.
Tomorrow he is again on his tax increase to close America down.
The man is insane.
Actually most left wing liberals do not like Obamacare. They were in favor of UHC and view Obamacare as a sell out to large Pharma and insurance companies.
Since when do conservatives want the government telling us what to buy? You have no clue what you're talking about.
What's better than forcing people to engage in private business?
Quote:
And the only required auto insurance is liability insurance, which is not to cover you, but to cover the guy you run over.
Or people who aren't insured.
Quote:
And it's not required just for being alive, it's required to drive, which is a privilege. Ridiculous comparison, sorry.
However, if you don't have a car...you don't have to buy car insurance...unlike this bill....
An individual has a right to travel on public roadways. There is precedent to driving as a right, and the supreme court found that regardless if driving is a right or a privilege, they have that right to travel on roadways. Assuming one can afford a vehicle, mandating they have insurance is as unjust as the mandate people have health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthGAbound12
Actually most left wing liberals do not like Obamacare. They were in favor of UHC and view Obamacare as a sell out to large Pharma and insurance companies.
Agreed, and what I often see as well. Most liberals I know would rather have a single-payer system. Lower cost, better healthcare, and insurance companies can go insure any number of a thousand different things.
What's better than forcing people to engage in private business?
Not forcing them to? Sorry, your broad generalization about conservatives based on what Gingrich did 20 years ago is completely false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Or people who aren't insured.
The purpose of liability insurance is to cover you if you hurt someone else and get sued for it, not to cover yourself. This is not comparable to carrying your own health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
An individual has a right to travel on public roadways. There is precedent to driving as a right, and the supreme court found that regardless if driving is a right or a privilege, they have that right to travel on roadways. Assuming one can afford a vehicle, mandating they have insurance is as unjust as the mandate people have health insurance.
If you want to equate having a license with simply being alive then fine, but I'm not buying it, sorry.
Without the mandate, the entire bill falls apart under the weight of its cost. The CBO will have to RESCORE it and it will be repealed soon after.
Once it is deemed unconstitutional, I hope Harvard revokes Barack's law degree and everyone who took a class from him sue for a refund.
The problem with this reasoning is that you all are counting your chickens before they hatch. The idea that the mandate is unconstitutional is a minority view among the circuit courts. You are in effect relying on the Supreme Court accepting a minority view, which, while possible, is far from certain.
You then further take that uncertainty as a given and propose an even narrower scenario which involves specific congressional and presidential action, total repeal despite the fact that some parts of the bill are quite popular and the burden of losing the mandate would likely fall on private insurers rather then the Federal government. (The cost cutting part of the bill for the Federal Government is largerly centered around changes to Medicare Advantage and that part of the bill is not thought to be unconstitutional by any circuit court). I have to say I think the chances of what you say coming to pass is far from likely.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 09-19-2011 at 01:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
