Soxbadger

Its not a minor technicality. Balta just said that if it had been written as a tax it would not have passed. A technicality would be that they made a typo and called it a "taxe" and the technicality had no impact on the bill passing. IF this is a technicality, then everything the Senate ever does could be interpreted by the Supreme Court as a mere technicality. Oh the bill only got 59 of the 60 necessary votes, well thats just a technicality. In the legal field, people live and die over technicalities.

So they purposefully didnt draft it properly, and now its the Supreme Court's fault because the Senate didnt draft a good bill. I may dislike certain judges for many reasons, but you cant ask the Supreme Court to make the laws for the Senate.

But they are right. If it was a tax, why not call it a tax. If you dont call it a tax, then it seemingly is something new, and therefore may not be allowed. Its a disingenuous argument, but it is an argument nonetheless. In fact it derives straight from contract law, penalty versus liquidated damages. If I write the exact same provision in a contract and call it a "penalty" as opposed to a "liquidated damage" it is unenforceable. So this really isnt that far fetched.

I never wear a hoodie and I dont own one. When I do my criminal actions, I wear a suit. No one ever pays attention to a guy in a suit.

Well that is just silly. I admittedly dont follow this type of stuff, but when the bill was passed I would have bet tonights mega millions on the fact that it was going to be in front of the Supreme Court. Which is why I would have tailored the bill in such a way that if the Conservative Judges were to deny it, it would severely change United States law (ie it is a privilege and if the Supreme Court struck it down, it would be saying that the govt cant make restrictions on privileges.) I understand the game of the Senate, but ultimately the Supreme Court was going to be deciding this law, and you needed to write it in a way that would force the Conservative Judges to agree or have to hurt other areas they care about.

Selective editing happens every day, dont believe what you see on tv. (Hmm my posts are already sounding more like me.)

Once again, back to my point, why not draft it in a way that there is the least path of resistance?

I believe you can reform the health care industry, but I believe that this law may have gone to far to start. In general, American jurisprudence moves slowly. It took 100 years from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement. But during those 100 years, laws were passed that slowly gave more rights. Thats where I think this law may have gone off the tracks, that they went for to much to quickly. That is why I wonder if a better approach would have been through the privilege route. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter how you get there, it just matters you get to where you want to go.

I think the strongest statement against hoodies is the terror that the Sith have brought to the Republic. If only hoodies had been banned, everyone would have known that Darth Sidious was actually Emperor Palpatine. THINK ABOUT IT.

But nonetheless, there are ways to draft the law to prevent those situations and be fair to all americans. The problem is that when its all or nothing, the likely outcome is nothing. Its better to give in and get the majority of what you want, then to get nothing. Also, and this in my opinion is important, because once people begin to become more comfortable with the idea, it will be easier to create other laws that may be more encompassing. But generally the first laws on an area are much narrower.

No it isnt. The rule could for unborns or for non-adults, that you have 2 years after you turn 18, or 2 years after you complete college, or whatever period you want. This gives everyone the chance to buy insurance.

Strange Sox, Once again, that issue can be resolved. The law could easily state that if your insurance is tied to your employer, that when you are terminated you can still continue to get the same coverage for the same price. I guess I just dont understand why there cant be some sort of compromise, this literally seems like an issue that reasonable people can figure out. I assume that most people want reasonably priced health insurance, I assume that most people do not want their tax payer money going to other peoples medical bills. Based on those 2 assumptions, you would think that there could be some sort of compromise for the better of the United States. That is the problem that I have with this, that everyone would benefit if we can just come up with an agreement. Instead of digging in on the issues, people should be thinking about ways to make it work for everyone. This isnt gun control or abortion, where there is simply no way to rectify or compromise, this is an issue where seemingly everyone is losing, yet no one wants to be the one who says, "Okay, lets give in a little, lets figure this out."

But you could easily change the law, to state that everyone in the US has a ____ enrollment period when the law enacts, to get the great rate. After that period the rates go up. It just seems that there are answers to these questions that are practical. I dont understand why we have to keep forcing a square peg into a round space.

That is just silly (for congress to set it up that way). There is no question (at least in my mind) that the govt couldnt draft a law stating that insurance companies can not deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. I believe that would fully be within their power.

Strangesox, Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the pre-existing condition part entirely unrelated to the mandate part? I believe that the law about pre-existing conditions would be enforceable but for the mandate. Furthermore, couldnt the govt/insurance companies provide some sort of cheaper insurance (like liability insurance for cars), that would at least provide minimum levels of coverage. Or couldnt the govt give insurance and count it as a benefit, such as food stamps, etc.

So you change the law. You cant just box yourself into an untenable position and do nothing about it. The fact is, the US can not continue down this path. You cant continue giving health care for everyone and having a few pay for it. It just wont work, so something has to be done, and I personally dont think we should change the law to prevent people from getting treatment, but maybe that is what have to gives. Because you just cant have it where people are guaranteed treatment and the govt/tax payers end up paying the bills. This just cant last forever.

Right that may be true, but once again I ask, why not take the path of least resistance. Why not call it a privilege and anyone who doesnt want to buy the insurance are specifically excluded from the Emergency Medical Act. Now it is your choice, if you want the ability to be treated, the ability to not be denied treatment, buy the insurance. If you dont care, if you want that personal freedom, dont buy the insurance. Isnt that the easier argument to get what they want, which is more people buying health care? Because I assure you, if people knew that they would not get medical treatment unless they had health insurance, more people would buy health insurance. Also it would reduce costs because those who did not buy insurance would not be able to get health care, which would then mean less costs for the whole. Personally I would prefer if it was universal healthcare or whatever, but you cant always get what you want.

Right and this is about "who pays for the care". And the law does not require that the govt pay for the care. So the fact that you get free medical care, is a privilege. (at least in my opinion). Otherwise, the person who receives the care should be liable for the care, and the taxpayer/govt should have 0 expense for it.

Strangesox, That article you linked is explaining my point exactly. Just because the dr has to provide care, does not mean we the taxpayers have to reimburse the hospital/dr. That is the privilege, having the tax payers bail you out.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Not by law though I don't think. That's just an ethical obligation that's turned into the governments promise to repay if the person can't. This is my thinking as well. Drs have an ethical duty to provide health care, but that does not mean people have the right to receive health care that is paid for by tax payers. If anything, it should be that the Dr/Hospital has to absorb the costs of their free services or write them off on their taxes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency situations. As I said, Im not that well versed, but I would argue that this is not actually a "right", I believe it is a "privilege." And using that argument it would have most likely been upheld by the Conservative Judges, because precedent clearly establishes that the govt can put a restriction on a privilege. I just dont understand why you wouldnt make this argument as it is the path of least resistance.

Y2hh, Well that is what Im arguing, you dont have to get private health insurance. If you dont get private health insurance you wont be able to get treated at hospital. Maybe the law was written poorly, maybe they should have simply written it this way. That if you do not have private health insurance, you do not have the privilege of getting treated at a hospital. No one is forcing anyone to buy that product, no one is forcing you to go to a hospital or dr for medical treatment. As I said, Im not very well versed, but I do believe that getting free medical treatment that is paid for by state tax payers, is not a right and therefore the govt can make insurance a condition precedent to receiving those benefits. If that was the law, would you disagree with that theory?

Im not very well versed on this stuff. And maybe this has been argued, but wouldnt it not be a tax because you are paying a private company. Wouldnt the better example be car insurance? Illinois law requires that you own car insurance to drive on the roads of Illinois. Now yes, driving is considered a privilege, but couldnt we argue that receiving medical treatment at a hospital, etc that is paid for by the tax payers is a privilege? That there is no law that states as a society we must treat anyone who is sick? So isnt there a good argument to be made that if you want the privilege of knowing that you can have access to any hospital, knowing that if you are sick or injured anywhere in the US, that you will be able to receive treatment, that the US can create a law that restricts that privilege unless you have health insurance? To me that seems like the actual intent of this law. Not to tax people (govt isnt getting the money, or at least that is my understanding), not to penalize people, but instead to prevent states/govt being left holding huge bills for the treatment of non-insured?

I dont really think those 3 guys would be the next fab 5, they are all good players but the Fab 5... Fab Five were rated in the top 100 of high school prospects in 1991, and four were in the top ten. Chris Webber was ranked #1, Juwan Howard was ranked #3, Jalen Rose was ranked #6, Jimmy King was ranked #9, and Ray Jackson was ranked #84. All but Jackson participated in the McDonald's All-American Game in 1991 In comparison, of the 3 you mentioned, only 1 is in the top 10 (Parker.) Its not even as good as Kentucky's class this year (Kidd Gilchrist, Davis, Teague, Wiltjer) and no one is really comparing them to the Fab 5. Either way, Groce should be competing with the OSU's, MSU's of the world, so its good news for Wisconsin, as most of those prospects werent going to be Badgers anyways.

That video just completely changed the dynamics of this case. I wish that evidence would have been released sooner.