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 must not work for a living. That $100k operation isn't free if you have any assets or a job. You will have a garnishment slapped on you before they close the sutures are fully healed. Hospitals WILL mantain margins. If you don't (or can't) pay, the people who have insurance will pay the bill for you. But it will get paid.
I know plenty of people who have skipped out on emergency room visits because of the cost and the best the hospital could do was try and collect. None of them have ever had garnishments placed on their income.
I voted 'yes' although I do think the individual mandate will be struck down by the Court.
As much as I hate paying (through property taxes) for the health care of the deadbeats, I agree that the Commerce Clause is not applicable for enforcing the mandate. Indeed, back in law school you spend quite a bit of time in studying the commerce clause, and quickly learn about how Congress has expanded its meaning beyond all original intent.
If the government can force private citizens to purchase health care, there is no limit to what they can force private citizens to do--all in the name of "regulating commerce". Can the implantable chip be far behind?
If the government can force private citizens to purchase health care, there is no limit to what they can force private citizens to do--all in the name of "regulating commerce". Can the implantable chip be far behind?
If Obama actually stated his true intention (in my opinion) he would have proposed pure socialized medicine, totally paid for by the government and abolished private care. Then he could truly run a significant portion of all of our lives.
If the government can force private citizens to purchase health care, there is no limit to what they can force private citizens to do--all in the name of "regulating commerce". Can the implantable chip be far behind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Good regurgitation.
Which does not make it untrue, no matter how the likes of you try to spin it.
besides the unconstitutional fact that the federal goverment is not allowed to penalize someone for not buying a product or make anyone buy a product.
Which provision in the US Constitution prohibits that power? Let us start there.
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.
You're off topic...
