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.
Actually liberals would love something like this to take complete effect. They think the government is the answer to everything. They will of course find out how wrong they are but it will be too late. That is what happens when your stupid.
Disagree. The government is not infringing on civil liberities by mandating hospitals to provide health care in emergency situations. They aren't forcing citizens to do anything in that case. The two arguments that I can see seem to be is 1) How will this effect the Feds ability to instrude on a citizens civil liberties? and 2) Just how is this going to effect health care in the long run? One seems to be a constitutional matter, while the other appears to be more economical.
Should grocery stores be forced to give food to starving people as well?
If Obama's mandate is unconstitutional, Reagan's mandate is also unconstitutional.
If you own a business the Government can mandate that you sell your services to people who have no intention or ability to pay ....... Sounds pretty scarry but no one was up in arms over it when hospitals were reqired to do this. I think the intention of the mandate is in effect the limits on it.
The cost reduction is supposed to come from healthy people joining the insured ranks. Since the pre-existing condition exclusion is no longer allowed to insurance companies, those folks will cause premiums to rise unless healthy people, who do not need insurance, join the insured ranks.
I'm not sure it will work, but I see the logic in it.
Thanks, I'm extremely skeptical on a gamble of that proportion. That being said, I think my mix up is in trying to understand how can you force those who already can't afford health insurance, to afford it already? And if they can't, what then? medicaid? Medicare? Or do they just go without and pay the penalty each year, finding it more economicaly feasible to just be "taxed" and remain uncovered.
Sorry for my rudeness. Just curious on how you would answer my question.
The federal government will be limited as it always has been. My state has mandated car insurance for car owners for a long time and it has not run roughshod over my individual rights. I don't see the federal government doing that either.
The point that you fail to realize is that once the government has he right to mandate obombacare, all bets are off.
The states will have precedent to fall back on to mandate whatever they choose. The left may not like some of these mandates.
Owning a vehicle is voluntary. In other words, you are not mandated to have insurance to drive, just to own. You can drive your neighbors car without having to buy insurance for yourself.
Should grocery stores be forced to give food to starving people as well?
If Obama's mandate is unconstitutional, Reagan's mandate is also unconstitutional.
Sorry, just saying it doesn't make it so. Regan's "mandate" doesn't compromise civil liberties.
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.
