Home Non Cigar Related
Options

ObamaCare comes up before the Supreme Court today

124»

Comments

  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    I agree that employers should not have that burden. I'm a frickin employer.Personally, i think that everyone should have.to shop and buy their own, with the money not taken out of their paycheck ( required by the federal government) by their employer. Its's totally convoluted. Let the people keep their money and spend it as THEY see fit. I still go back to the original post and argue that penalizing individual americans for not buying something is just plain, for lack of a better term, un-American
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    beatnic:
    I agree that employers should not have that burden. I'm a frickin employer.Personally, i think that everyone should have.to shop and buy their own, with the money not taken out of their paycheck ( required by the federal government) by their employer. Its's totally convoluted. Let the people keep their money and spend it as THEY see fit. I still go back to the original post and argue that penalizing individual americans for not buying something is just plain, for lack of a better term, un-American
    Being required to buy auto insurance is "un-American'?

    "...i think that everyone should have.to shop and buy their own..." Do you mean this, or do you mean those who want to should buy their own, and those who don't want to should be allowed to let those who do to be responsible for those who don't? If you mean what you've posted, then you agree witht he individual mandate.

    Should people be denied health care because they have no health insurance, or funds to cover the care to be given? Should hospitals be required to care for people without health insurance? Should Insurance Companies or doctors decide what care is needed?
  • Options
    stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    JDH:
    beatnic:
    I agree that employers should not have that burden. I'm a frickin employer.Personally, i think that everyone should have.to shop and buy their own, with the money not taken out of their paycheck ( required by the federal government) by their employer. Its's totally convoluted. Let the people keep their money and spend it as THEY see fit. I still go back to the original post and argue that penalizing individual americans for not buying something is just plain, for lack of a better term, un-American
    Being required to buy auto insurance is "un-American'?...
    The number of times you've come back to this example is amazing.

  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    stephen_hannibal:
    JDH:
    beatnic:
    I agree that employers should not have that burden. I'm a frickin employer.Personally, i think that everyone should have.to shop and buy their own, with the money not taken out of their paycheck ( required by the federal government) by their employer. Its's totally convoluted. Let the people keep their money and spend it as THEY see fit. I still go back to the original post and argue that penalizing individual americans for not buying something is just plain, for lack of a better term, un-American
    Being required to buy auto insurance is "un-American'?...
    The number of times you've come back to this example is amazing.

    ...and your point is ? Many very conservative justices have argued FOR the individual mandate for this reason, among others.
  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    JDH:
    stephen_hannibal:
    JDH:
    beatnic:
    I agree that employers should not have that burden. I'm a frickin employer.Personally, i think that everyone should have.to shop and buy their own, with the money not taken out of their paycheck ( required by the federal government) by their employer. Its's totally convoluted. Let the people keep their money and spend it as THEY see fit. I still go back to the original post and argue that penalizing individual americans for not buying something is just plain, for lack of a better term, un-American
    Being required to buy auto insurance is "un-American'?...
    The number of times you've come back to this example is amazing.

    ...and your point is ? Many very conservative justices have argued FOR the individual mandate for this reason, among others.
    If you drive you must buy car insurance. If you breathe within our political boundaries you must buy health insurance. What next? I'm not sure i even agree with the auto mandate. I do believe in liberty and personal responsibility.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    For the record, I'm expecting the Regressives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) to vote to kill the individual mandate, and several of them will probably want to kill the entire bill. I also expect the Progressives (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Bryer, and Kagan) to uphold both.

    I believe that Kennedy will provide the deciding vote, and I have no idea how he will decide.

    FYI - there are no Protestants on this Court. 6 are Roman Catholics and 3 are Jewish. Just a bit of trivia.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    "...If you drive you must buy car insurance. If you breathe within our political boundaries you must buy health insurance. What next? I'm not sure i even agree with the auto mandate. I do believe in liberty and personal responsibility. ..."

    Not everyone will drive an automobile, but everyone who does is required to carry auto insurance.

    Everyone will use the healthcare system at one point or another. Why should everyone not be required to carry health insurance, and take the burden off of employers?

    If you are starving, and walk into a grocery store or resturant, neither of them is required to feed you. If you are in need of medical care, and arrive at a hospital emergency room, they are required to provide care for you.

    If you believe in personal responsibility, and in capital market driven solutions to our economic problems, then you logically should also support the individual mandate, because it requires individual responsibility. It should be remembered that Individual Liberty and Personal Freedoms also require personal and individual responsibility. All of the founding fathers recognized this, and wrote extensively about it.
  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Everyone will die. Do we now require those who can afford burial insurance to suppliment those who can't? What next?
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    beatnic:
    Everyone will die. Do we now require those who can afford burial insurance to suppliment those who can't? What next?
    No, because paupers who die without means are still buried or cremated at the expense of society at large, and these burial expenses are miniscule when compared to the costs of providing medical care for the living.
  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Jd- peace to you brother. Thanks for the conversation. If everyone contrmplatedthese things as much as you and i, we'd have a more enlightened society. Istill disagree with the socialistic approach.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    beatnic:
    Jd- peace to you brother. Thanks for the conversation. If everyone contrmplatedthese things as much as you and i, we'd have a more enlightened society. Istill disagree with the socialistic approach.
    You are quite welcome. It's been a pleasure, even though I have failed to convince you that this is not a socialistic approach to the problem (unless the principle of insurance is socialistic), but rather a market-driven solution to a complex problem.

    I think I'll go sit out on my back porch and burn up a MOW in your honor.
Sign In or Register to comment.