StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) They COULD, but it would have been pricey. It would either be so costly as to effectively be unavailable or simply unavailable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) 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. It's absolutely within their power, and it would also likely bankrupt them. That's why we'll be in for interesting times if the mandate is struck down but the rest of the act is left in place. It's also why the argument for the mandate comes in under N&P, since it is necessary for legitimate, constitutional regulation like the Guaranteed Issue provision.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) 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. The mandate is necessary in order for insurance companies not to implode under a litany of pre-existing condition applicants that they're now required to take on. If they have to cover patients with pre-existing conditions (without exorbitant rates) but there is no mandate, I can simply wait on buying insurance until I have cancer, then get a policy at the same price as everyone else and stick the insurer with the hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs. The government already provides Medicare and Medicaid. I'm all for expanding those programs to everyone.

I'm unsure of who has the better argument over what to do with the severability between Scalia and Ginsburg. There's a whole boatload of provisions in the bill that are plainly constitutional and don't rely on the mandate while there's a couple (guaranteed issue for example) that clearly do. Should the SCOTUS strike down the entire law if the mandate is found unconstitutional? Excise only the parts that are tied to the mandate, effectively giving them a line-item veto? Remand the whole thing back to Congress to fix?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) 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. Before the PPACA, many people simply couldn't buy insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Private insurance is still prohibitively expensive for millions more, so removing emergency care mandates simply results in the poor losing access to what little medical care they get now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:25 PM) Yeah so that's still pretty limited to emergent care, and they still bill you for it. That's not really an obligation to treat without any strings attached. That's just mandating that they can't deny you emergency treatment at the time you need it. That's one of the central arguments over the ability to regulate the "inactivity" of not buying health insurance. The uninsured frequently pass on medical costs to the insured or to the government via emergency care they cannot pay for. Every time there's a medical bankruptcy, we're all paying for it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) 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. The person who receives the care may be liable but unable to repay medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars. This results in an increased cost on everyone else, which eliminates the inactivity/activity distinction because the inactivity has clear economic impact on commerce. Or so the argument goes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) 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. But that's why the "inactivity/activity" argument is a canard. Your "inactivity" of not buying insurance increases the risk pool for everyone else, since ultimately the people with insurance will be the ones covering your bill through higher costs from doctors/hospitals and higher premiums.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) 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. It is not necessarily or entirely covered by federal reimbursement, but the care is mandated.

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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Med...ctive_Labor_Act

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) 1) The difference is one is a tax and one is not. So, semantics then. FWIW the SCOTUS has found in the past that the Congress doesn't need to explicitly use the word "tax" when they enact a policy that is, for all intents and purposes, a tax. It's not about the dollar values of how big the tax credits are. It's about an easy comparison to tax credits for certain purchases. But this still comes down to Congress having the same power. It's just that, in your view, they can only exercise it in a round-about way with the exact same results and the exact same coercion. They're just as politically accountable for a mandate-or-penalty scheme as they are for a tax-and-credit scheme.

Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency situations.

Wow you liked the misogynist response shocking

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) None of this happened, so why do you keep trying to discuss it? There is no discussion here...it was and is a hypothetical. It was a ridiculous bill the Republicans introduced and it was shot down, as it should have been. For many of the same reasons they never should have done this bill the way they did it. Pointing to the republicans and saying, well they tried it, too...nah nah nah, doesn't do much here. It points out that the hysterics of how this removes the last shreds of freedom are laughable, and it points out that no one thought this was a constitutional problem until very recently. It shows that the arguments against the mandate are not based on long-standing precedence but are novel arguments that directly counter policies and proposals that anti-mandaters were advocating for a short while ago. It questions the legitimacy of their arguments.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) We've explained this already. Medicare is a tax. SS is a tax. Look on your paycheck. THIS IS NOT A TAX. That's the entire point in that it's a NEW power granted to congress. If this precedent is set, and I know you find the Broccoli argument ridiculous -- because it's SUPPOSED TO BE -- it sets the future precedent that congress can now tell you that you have to buy things. Yes, they can always pass a tax increase, and that's STILL NOT THE SAME AS THEM TELLING YOU TO BUY SOMETHING, even if it's achieving the same goal. What is the substantial difference between a tax and a penalty? You're not forced to buy something, but you face a penalty if you do not. I'm not forced to buy a home, but I'll pay higher federal income taxes for not having a mortgage. Isn't this merely a distinction of semantics?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) There were many theories on the table, from a strictly private investment to the government lock box. But either way, that's at least the government decided to forgive you from a tax. You didn't have to "buy" anything. If the options were to pay the tax or buy a specific private market investment then I would have made the same argument. I want the freedom to investment my money however I please. You had the option to divert some of your FICA funds into private investment vehicles, but you could not simply keep the money. You were mandated to invest in certain types of private investments or to pay higher FICA taxes. You could not do anything you wanted with that money.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) Comes down to choice, and lack of choice. You don't HAVE to buy a car or drive, therefore they're not telling you that you HAVE to purchase something. You HAVE to do this. In this case, they're outright telling you that you HAVE to buy a product, even if you don't want it. And I know, it's silly that a person wouldn't want health insurance, right? That's the point. The argument, and Kennedy hit on this during arguments, is that vanishingly few people have the ability to truly and completely opt-out of the health care market. Everyone consumes at some point, and those without insurance shift the cost burden onto everyone else. Which is why talking about mandating Chevy Volt purchases was dumb partisanship.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) The whole privatizing social security idea was a stupid idea which didn't get through anyway, nor did anyone think it had any chance to get through, so of course the unconstitutional arguments didn't start. I'm sure they would have, however, if they did get it through...only right now, you'd all be arguing how it's unconstitutional, instead...as would the 4 liberal justices. * Edit : And this had an opt-out clause, as a poster stated above, which wouldn't penalize you for opting out... If you want to go with the opposition to the ACA mandate being purely political and opportunistic I won't argue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) That was mandatory either, it was an option - either continue paying SS tax and get SS benefits, or keep your money and be on your own. You could not simply "keep" the money. You were mandated to invest it in private-market investment vehicles. The medicare privatization schemes are similar. So what new Congressional powers did ACA find, and what powers will striking down ACA limit?

Men don't think they're owed a women based on terrible 90's movies, no. You're still not getting it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Social Security Privatizing didn't happen, though...this did. But nobody* at the time really thought there was anything unconstitutional about mandated private retirement investment accounts. *there's always the libertarians who think the whole modern government is pretty much unconstitutional

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) That's actually a pretty major tweak. If it was that "minor" they'd have done it that way from the start. Or maybe they didn't anticipate anyone would take garbage like the broccoli arguments seriously since conservatives didn't have a problem with mandates until Obama came along (see: who originally crafted the mandate, social security privatizing in 2005). Again, how does striking down the mandate limit Congress's powers if they can still get the same exact results with different wording?

What meaningful limit on Congress's power is there if the ACA mandate is struck down if Congress can do the exact same thing with a minor tweak?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) I just told you why. So have 4 other people. It is different because it requires you to buy a consumer product. Now, it can be argued that those two things you list are financially a similar impact, and the delivery of service to citizens is in essence the same. And therefore, you can think it is a good thing. But simply, mechanically, and on its face, it is NOT the same. It is crossing a line, and the only way to make that OK is to move said line, which can really only be done via a Constitutional amendment. They should have had the balls to just make it a tax and do it right the first time. And if that wouldn't survive, then go another route. What line is crossed? What new power has Congress gained? If they could do the exact same thing but with different wording, what line is being crossed here? edit: A strong majority of legal scholars were basically laughing at the "inactivity/activity" novel distinction before this week.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) Yeah because if I don't agree with his view of what a male is/should be i'm just a hater of women! (the article isn't about what a male is/should be)