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.
The average American doesn't know any of this. The media that's SUPPOSED to inform us about these things is instead full of pundits on the left and right, screaming at each other. That's why the health-care law got repealed. We repealed it because it scared us. It scared us because we understood nothing about it.
It is unconstitutional hence illegal. It's okay to be scared of something that is illegal.
I love Republicans. It's wrong to kill a six week old fertilized egg that may or may not become a human being . . . but an actual, living breathing human being outside of the womb can drop dead if they don't have enough money to pay for insurance costs.
Nice work, guys. Because the overpriced inefficient system that we have now -- the system that stifles innovation, ties to people to jobs they hate, punishes people who get sick and lines the pockets of health care executives -- is just dandy.
Really. The Republican party has literally nothing to say on this issue other than go to an emergency room and socialized medicine. It's disgusting. Shame on all of you who support this nonsense. All you're doing is acting against your own best interests.
This is proof, that if you keep yourself ignorant enough, you can believe anything.
You must have bought into that Allen Grayson's pathetic display before congress, or maybe you are Allen Grayson.
The average American doesn't know any of this. The media that's SUPPOSED to inform us about these things is instead full of pundits on the left and right, screaming at each other. That's why the health-care law got repealed. We repealed it because it scared us. It scared us because we understood nothing about it.
And those of us who have been reading the new law, page by page and the bill before were not just scared but mad as Hades!
Funny how people are in full support of activist judges legislating form the bench when they are on their side...
What was "activist" about viewing the following as unconstitutional?:
Mandating under federal law, that simply as a function of citizenship, all US citizens must enter into a contract with a private third party, to purchase insurance, in some cases costing over $12,000 a year, or face federal prosecution, fines, imprisonment or both.
This judge did not legislate from the bench, did not write new law, he just voided badly written, and unconstitutional law
One, I am not entirely convinced this mandate either is, or is not unconstitutional. The commerce clause is tricky, and because the constitution is so ambiguous about most things, including "commerce" I tend to think looking at it with a definite view on whether a policy is, or is not constitutional is just silly in most cases. Second I image most people on Medicare are there because they prefer it to the private alternatives available. Third, Enron, WaMu and the like should demonstrate that private companies are not all that great at dealing with issues of fraud and abuse. Finally, in theory if everyone was required to carry insurance, it does reduce costs, because the insured would not have to eat the healthcare costs of the uninsured who need medical treatment.
The Commerce Clause sure tricked the Supreme Court as they reinterpreted it in more than one case instead of judging it's meaning (which is not a mystery) in relation to the cases at hand.
That sure has caused a lot of abuse over the years and a big part of the reason we are in this unconstitutional mess today.
That by no means justifies a government take-over of our health care system. In fact, there's lots of evidence to support the fact that government run health care makes care worse.
Private, for profit companies always outperform the government...take Fed Ex and UPS as an example.
We can pass laws that can address it's shortcomings without throwing out the baby with the bath water.
So, if a 9 year old child has a broken leg, and his parents refuse to pay for insurance then you're ok with that child either being lame for life or dead?
Thats what you're advocating. I'm relatively sure that 90% of Americans would disagree with you there. So then the question has to be asked, who doesn't deserve care? A 30 year old man who is a bum and doesn't work? What if he is a vet or has a mental condition? A 65 year old woman who stubbornly doesn't want to go to the doctor? What about her kids and grandkids?
Then write a law, whereby the federal government takes away children from parents who refuse to buy health insurance.
Don't forget to make a similar federal law, mandating that parents live close enough to a doctor, and have modern transportation to travel to town, and possess a telecommunications device sufficient enough to contact the doctor. Cuz some family might live up in the mountains, and be unable to get to town quick enough for proper treatment of that broken leg. Oh yeah, and make illegal for the parents to treat the broken leg on their own, just in case they mess up and the child has a permanent limp.
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.
