The Supreme Court Might Have to Postpone?

People make the argument on both sides if it helps or hurts Obama. Truth is, if you are for it, it helps him, if you are against it, it hurts him, no matter how its ruled. Problem for Obama is more people don't like it than do like it, but its probably pretty evenly split. People do want some fixes.


General consensus, now that the hearing is over for today, is not a single justice thinks this is a tax, therefore, they can proceed without a problem.

Dan
 
I don't see a problem with the Mandate. It reminds me of the Social Security debate during George W. Bush's term. Republicans wanted individuals to be able to invest their own SS. The result would have been a mandate for people to invest either with a private company, or to keep the money with the State funded Social Security Fund . It ended up not passing, and it probably should have. Obama care skipped the step of creating the big bureaucracy and went directly to giving people flexibly and a choice when it comes to picking an insurer. Everybody buys, nobody can be denied. That's the compromise.

As the story says: "$43 billion a year worth of emergency-room and other health care for which they do not pay, costs that are shifted to insurers and that raise insured families' average premiums by more than $1,000 a year. "

We are already paying for people who don't have insurance. IMO, we need to find a more efficient way, than paying expensive emergency-room bills, to do it.
 
....As the story says: "$43 billion a year worth of emergency-room and other health care for which they do not pay, costs that are shifted to insurers and that raise insured families' average premiums by more than $1,000 a year. "

We are already paying for people who don't have insurance. IMO, we need to find a more efficient way, than paying expensive emergency-room bills, to do it.

Ahh, you are correct. The problem is the mandates. Now, can you fix the mandate that people must be cared for with more mandates?

Lets see. You must buy insurance. You can't afford it, you must sign up for this policy where you get a stipend to pay for it. It goes on and on.

I understood the system we had. I would understand single payor (though I disagree), but I really don't understand this system we are heading towards. It seems like they picked just about the worse solutions to the problems and called it good enough, forgetting to fix some of the real problems.

Dan
 
What is the difference between a federal mandate and a mandate by states that requires automobile owners to have auto insurance? Obviously one is federal and requires all people (states) to comply. But is a government mandate, state or federal, legal?
 
What is the difference between a federal mandate and a mandate by states that requires automobile owners to have auto insurance?

Big difference.

If you don't own/drive a car you are not required to buy auto insurance.

If upheld, this is the only instance where the govt compels everyone to buy a product or service.
 
States also have the power to issue mandates like this. The federal government does not. This was specifically setup in the Constitution.

The state actually could issue a mandate to buy health insurance and while people may not like it, chances are, you wouldn't hear a serious argument about it being unconstitutional. The federal government is claiming they have the power to issue this mandate simply because they have the power to control interstate commerce (not intrastate commerce though).

It will be interesting over the next few months.

Dan
 
Interesting that it's not ruled a tax. If I'm not mistaken, isn't universal care paid for in Europe via a tax?
 
Back
Top