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.
You don't really believe what you said, do you? You do know that it is just the opposite when libs are doing the talking about decisions. You think that only the good guys are wrong, and you know it.
What are you talking about? I constantly hear whining from Conservatives about activist federal judges. Why are judges who side on an issue liberals support activist, but those who side on an issue conservatives support not?
There is a little known limitation in the US Constitution under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 that says:
Quote:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Most people are not aware that a Bill of Attainder is when guilt and punishment is delt by legislative fiat rather than the courts. Penalizing those who choose not to buy health insurance, while denying them the benefit of due process in the courts, amounts to a Bill of Attainder.
How do you intend to finance the whole thing? I just heard the chairwoman of the Dem party refuse to explain how they would be able to tax enough to finance Obamacare without the mandate. How do you really think it will be done without that mandate?
HHS Sec. Sebelius refused to answer Sen. Thune's questions recently about whether a mandate would be required to pay for the CLASS portion of Obamacare (LTC insurance for seniors as a new entitlement under Obamcare).
What are you talking about? I constantly hear whining from Conservatives about activist federal judges. Why are judges who side on an issue liberals support activist, but those who side on an issue conservatives support not?
You are calling two judges, out of three, activists, aren't you?
I guarantee if we go to public option, there'll be many doctors who stop accepting insurance and go cash only.
Some already refuse medicaid patients. In some states medicaid reimbursement rates are only 25% of the already-low Medicare rates.
I don't think public option premiums would be much if any less than private insurers. The theory is that, being non-profit or not-for-profit would keep premiums lower for the same service. But elimination of the profit component would likely be offset by the inefficiencies and mismanagement that plague all government operations.
Also, removal of the mandate would presumably restore the ability of private insurers to offer the type of bare-bones high-deductible coverage that obamacare outlawed, at much lower premiums...
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.
