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.
eg, ask someone else to explain it to you. while you're at it, ask them to tell you what would happen to the auto insurance industry if you only had to buy insurance after an accident.
I'm asking you. Why can't you explain it? As for your illustration with auto insurance, that represents a problem with Medicare. No? That also illustrates that you actually expect people to have auto insurance BEFORE accident, a form of mandate that exists. After that, you can still buy auto insurance albeit pay a higher premium for it.
Quote:
i doubt the mandate forcing people to buy insurance will stand (and it's been struck down by 2 courts), if it doesn't, the pre-existing conditions requirement will have to go or the entire insurance industry will cave in
Non issue. So far the courts have been split on the mandate. But I'm not counting. I couldn't care less about it. What I care about right now is your continued deflection that is the premise of this thread you created. This time I will enumerate:
1- Under Obama care, do states have the freedom to devise their own plan?
2- Do you support a federal tort reform law applied to all states, disregarding whether they want it or not?
1- Under Obama care, do states have the freedom to devise their own plan?
2- Do you support a federal tort reform law applied to all states, disregarding whether they want it or not?
1) under obamacare the states have limited room. they still have to comply with most of the law.
2) if the federal govt continues to overstep its reach then yes, i'd support federal tort reform. i would prefer it if the states weren't interfered with to start, in which case it should be left up to each state.
I think things as nationally significant as automobile and health insurance should be regulated, in the case of health insurance, provided, by the Federal Government. I do not understand why State governments should be involved. I also believe damage settlements should be limited to the value actual damages done and the lawyers be limited to a fixed, not percentage, amount of money based on the actual work done on the case.
1) under obamacare the states have limited room. they still have to comply with most of the law.
2) if the federal govt continues to overstep its reach then yes, i'd support federal tort reform. i would prefer it if the states weren't interfered with to start, in which case it should be left up to each state.
1- So, the answer is a yes, albeit with a condition that the room is limited. That is true. States were never meant to be the end all, but work under the federal umbrella. States aren't expected to be able to subtract from federal guidelines.
2- Then it is not a case of "if" because you are supporting federal authority with no room for state to choose. Considering that you started this thread on the premise of states' rights, shouldn't you support tort reform to be implemented only at state level but not being forced on all by federal authority? Or, is this yet another case of "as long as the idea bodes well with my belief system, it is okay to have federal law override state rights?
1- So, the answer is a yes, albeit with a condition that the room is limited. That is true. States were never meant to be the end all, but work under the federal umbrella. States aren't expected to be able to subtract from federal guidelines.
rubbish. the constitution is quite clear on the enumerated powers. the states were meant to deal with this kind of thing without any federal involvement, period!
I think things as nationally significant as automobile and health insurance should be regulated, in the case of health insurance, provided, by the Federal Government. I do not understand why State governments should be involved. I also believe damage settlements should be limited to the value actual damages done and the lawyers be limited to a fixed, not percentage, amount of money based on the actual work done on the case.
state govts should provide their service so they can experiment and follow best practice. the one size fits all approach of the federal govt is inefficient, doesn't provide leeway for states to try new things, it is incredibly difficult to change.
take medical mj. because the system is so polarized it would nearly be impossible for the federal govt to change its position. left to the states, we eventually get one state who decides to experiment. other states look on, examine the evidence and then they too allow medical mj.
healthcare is no exception. i'd have no problem if one state tried single payer, another tried romney care, another tried the market etc. that is the best way. additionally, people who really believed in the concept of single payer could lobby their states to impliment it or they could move to a state which offered sp. likewise, those of us who'd prefer market driven medicine could do the same
rubbish. the constitution is quite clear on the enumerated powers. the states were meant to deal with this kind of thing without any federal involvement, period!
The clarity means nothing, if you don't know what it clarifies. Let us look at Article VI, Para 2 for that:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Still think it was rubbish? But as usual, you avoided defending your position on why federal law forcing tort reform on every state is okay because you support such idea but cry foul using states' rights as an excuse when the law goes against your whim.
The clarity means nothing, if you don't know what it clarifies. Let us look at Article VI, Para 2 for that:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Still think it was rubbish? But as usual, you avoided defending your position on why federal law forcing tort reform on every state is okay because you support such idea but cry foul using states' rights as an excuse when the law goes against your whim.
ever heard of the 10th amendment?
my position of federal tort laws is this. no, i do not support federal tort laws. is that clear? the federal govt is going to go ahead with its agenda anyway regardless of what i think. that being the case, tort reform would be a good addition to whatever trashy legislation they force on the states.
Yeah, what about it? But more importantly, what did you think of the clause mentioned in my previous post?
Quote:
my position of federal tort laws is this. no, i do not support federal tort laws. is that clear? the federal govt is going to go ahead with its agenda anyway regardless of what i think. that being the case, tort reform would be a good addition to whatever trashy legislation they force on the states.
No, it is not clear. Your second sentence and last sentence are contradictory. Try again.
Yeah, what about it? But more importantly, what did you think of the clause mentioned in my previous post?
No, it is not clear. Your second sentence and last sentence are contradictory. Try again.
this is my last post to you eg so if you don't get it tough. the clause you mentioned is in the constitution, correct? the 10th amendment, amends that constitution. do you get it now? in other words, the constitution made a provision and the amendment set a condition or limitation on that provision. sorry i really don't know how else to explain it to you.
as you know i support an end to the drug war. i would really prefer it if the states individually ended prohibition, but if the federal govt did so, i wouldn't lose any sleep over it. likewise, if the federal govt reformed tort, i would not agree with their authority to do so, but i would move on to another issue and wouldn't lose anymore sleep over tort.
eg, i will no longer respond to your posts. i think you've made it your life's ambition to annoy me with stupid questions. please excuse me, 58robbo
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.
