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.
they are mandating that we buy a product from a private Company, taxes are differant. Can Car Insurance is not a federal mandate, its state by state.
So, when you pay taxes, it is no longer yours and the government can choose to do anything it wishes to do with it and you would never complain about it. Right?
And what about the unfunded mandate that is Medicare Part D, the prescription drug plan you have to join at the outset or pay a penalty if you decide to opt in later?
This seems the same as the O-care mandate- buy the insurance, or pay a penalty, your "choice". I can't see why Part D shouldn't end up in front of the Supremes just like O-care has.
You answered your own question. "you have to join at the outset or pay a penalty if you decide to opt in later". You have THE OPTION of joining now. If you don't want to, you HAVE TO.
I think it's pretty obvious that Romney supports Romneycare.
I don't see that changing with him becoming President. If anything, as President he will have the authority to sign it into federal law, something he didn't have as Governor.
I don't think it is obvious at all. In fact, IMO it is just the opposite.
Are you aware he vetoed 8 parts of the bill only to have the dem controlled (85%) legislature overrode the vetoes?
"More crucially, as Jennifer Heldt Powell and Josh Archambault describe in a new book, The Great Experiment, it was Democrats and progressive activists who ended up implementing the Massachusetts health law, especially after Romney left office in January 2007.They took the law in a much different direction than Romney would have liked. And while Democrats have sought to credit (or blame) Romney for the passage of Obamacare, it is more accurate to say that the federal Affordable Care Act is modeled after the Democratically implemented version of the Massachusetts law, as opposed to the one that Romney had sought."
I think it's pretty obvious that Romney supports Romneycare.
Obviously you haven't listened to Romney much.
Quote:
I don't see that changing with him becoming President.
Don't see what changing?
What Romney said? Or what you wish he had said?
Obamacare is unconstitutional because (a) The Constitution doesn't give the Fed Govt any authority to force us to buy a private product from a private service, and (b) It also doesn't give the Fed any authority to have anything to do with medical care or insurance at all, outside of functions related directly to the military and possibly to Federal employees.
Romneycare, though, is a STATE program run by a STATE government.
The Constitution says that all power is reserved to the states and the people, except for powers specifically given by the Const to the Fed govt or forbidden to the states. Meaning, states can do most anything they want, while the Fed is very restricted in what it can do. The US Constitution has no problem with Massachusetts running Romneycare, but it has a major problem with the US govt running such a thing. Romney has pointed this out many times in various speeches.
Romney says that Romneycare is fine for Massachusetts but would be very bad for the entire country, even if it were constitutional for the country, which Romney says it isn't.
Personally I think it is bad even for Massachusetts. Romney disagrees with me on this, no one is perfect. But clearly it is not ILLEGAL for Massachusetts - merely a bad idea.
Quote:
If anything, as President he will have the authority to sign it into federal law,
He will have the same authority to sign it into Federal law that Obama had: ZERO.
As the Supreme Court will explain to him tomorrow.
Don't see what changing?
What Romney said? Or what you wish he had said?
Obamacare is unconstitutional because (a) The Constitution doesn't give the Fed Govt any authority to force us to buy a private product from a private service, and (b) It also doesn't give the Fed any authority to have anything to do with medical care or insurance at all, outside of functions related directly to the military and possibly to Federal employees.
Romneycare, though, is a STATE program run by a STATE government.
The Constitution says that all power is reserved to the states and the people, except for powers specifically given by the Const to the Fed govt or forbidden to the states. Meaning, states can do most anything they want, while the Fed is very restricted in what it can do. The US Constitution has no problem with Massachusetts running Romneycare, but it has a major problem with the US govt running such a thing. Romney has pointed this out many times in various speeches.
Romney says that Romneycare is fine for Massachusetts but would be very bad for the entire country, even if it were constitutional for the country, which Romney says it isn't.
Personally I think it is bad even for Massachusetts. Romney disagrees with me on this, no one is perfect. But clearly it is not ILLEGAL for Massachusetts - merely a bad idea.
He will have the same authority to sign it into Federal law that Obama had: ZERO.
As the Supreme Court will explain to him tomorrow.
"Listening" to Romney may be why you're now agreeing with him on something that he didn't see as an issue when proposing his ideas for RomneyCare for ObamaCare, while making a point against Public Option in an Op-Ed in July 2009. A partial quote from that Op-ed is in my earlier post.
In other words, he says what you want to hear, not necessarily what he means or has supported in the past (much less promoted). But then, he is a politician, isn't he? About that "listening" again...
Don't see what changing?
What Romney said? Or what you wish he had said?
Obamacare is unconstitutional because (a) The Constitution doesn't give the Fed Govt any authority to force us to buy a private product from a private service, and (b) It also doesn't give the Fed any authority to have anything to do with medical care or insurance at all, outside of functions related directly to the military and possibly to Federal employees.
Romneycare, though, is a STATE program run by a STATE government.
The Constitution says that all power is reserved to the states and the people, except for powers specifically given by the Const to the Fed govt or forbidden to the states. Meaning, states can do most anything they want, while the Fed is very restricted in what it can do. The US Constitution has no problem with Massachusetts running Romneycare, but it has a major problem with the US govt running such a thing. Romney has pointed this out many times in various speeches.
Romney says that Romneycare is fine for Massachusetts but would be very bad for the entire country, even if it were constitutional for the country, which Romney says it isn't.
Personally I think it is bad even for Massachusetts. Romney disagrees with me on this, no one is perfect. But clearly it is not ILLEGAL for Massachusetts - merely a bad idea.
He will have the same authority to sign it into Federal law that Obama had: ZERO.
As the Supreme Court will explain to him tomorrow.
Thank you, glad I read through the whole thread before chiming in. The primary argument about the Constitutionality of the law is that it violates restrictions of the Federal component of Interstate Commerce. If SCOTUS reads, comprehends and adheres to the Constitution has much as we can hope to expect from them, it's abundantly clear to any reasonbly minded person that the Fed cannot impose a purchase of product(s) (in this case health insurance) upon one, any or all of the states.
Add to that the absence of a severability clause; (which means that SCOTUS could selectively 'sever' unconstitutional components of the law, while letting other components stand) the bill/ law, as signed, reviewed and soon to be ruled on is an all or nothing proposition.
Add to that the absence of a severability clause; (which means that SCOTUS could selectively 'sever' unconstitutional components of the law, while letting other components stand) the bill/ law, as signed, reviewed and soon to be ruled on is an all or nothing proposition.
When there is no severability clause (Obamacare doesn't have one), the Supremes won't necessarily throw the whole thing out just because they find one part (like the mandate) unconstitutional.
They will look at it and try to decide:
If Congress had been told originally that they couldn't have the mandate, would they have still written the rest of the bill as it is, even without the mandate? Or would they have decided that, without the mandate, they had to write a lot of the bill differently?
If the Supremes strike down the mandate, and if they decide that Congress would have written the rest differently without it, THEN they will probably strike down the whole thing. But if they decide that Congress would have written the rest exactly as it is, even without the mandate, then the Supremes might let the rest stand.
Of course, the Supremes might strike down the mandate and then decide that other parts of the bill are unconstitutional too. In that case, they might strike down many parts (or possibly all) of Obamacare.
Practically all Republicans health care proposals include a mandate to buy insurance.
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.
