SCOTUS Health Care debate

[luckytxn 2,263]

But they already force citizens to sell products without payment. Seems worse.

Not citizens. Hospitals have to have a charter by the state. Want to keep your charter?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not citizens. Hospitals have to have a charter by the state. Want to keep your charter?

Are you saying corporations aren't people (Hospitals are generally corporations with a board etc)? Because SCOTUS told me they were.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,263]

Are you saying corporations aren't people (Hospitals are generally corporations with a board etc)? Because SCOTUS told me they were.

They never said that.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They never said that.

Sure they did. (well a collection of people)

[james&olya 1,121]

Can I go in and buy a cellphone, a car, or even broccoli without slapping down cash or some form of credit? Uh no I can't. But I can become injured and receive treatment without cash or a form of credit...

The whole issue of a mandate being needed has come from our 'bleeding heart liberal' attitude that someone needing medical care must get it before their ability to pay is determined. I propose to fix the whole problem with constitutionally questionable mandates with a very tea-party republican sort of solution.

Stop treating people without insurance unless they can pay cash up front! Keep the rest of Obamacare so that insurance is reasonably available and affordable for all. FORBID emergency rooms from treating those who have refused to sign up for insurance unless they have the thousands in cash up front that may be billed! People would sign up without a mandate. Those who refuse might become eligible for 'Darwin awards'!

[luckytxn 2,263]

Sure they did. (well a collection of people)

Nope but it is good you believe the hype put out saying it was.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Stop treating people without insurance unless they can pay cash up front! Keep the rest of Obamacare so that insurance is reasonably available and affordable for all. FORBID emergency rooms from treating those who have refused to sign up for insurance unless they have the thousands in cash up front that may be billed! People would sign up without a mandate. Those who refuse might become eligible for 'Darwin awards'!

Nope but it is good you believe the hype put out saying it was.

They were granted personhood....seems cut an dry.

[luckytxn 2,263]

They were granted personhood....seems cut an dry.

They were granted the right to have their speech heard. To allow groups to be able to spend money to possibly harm you without also being granted the right to defend yourself was wrong.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They were granted the right to have their speech heard. To allow groups to be able to spend money to possibly harm you without also being granted the right to defend yourself was wrong.

Well that was a part of it, but it was broader than that.

Tell me if the Queen grants me knighthood I'm not really a knight?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Before we get too far remember there is a huge difference between states and Feds.

The feds mandate that hospitals treat patients in emegency care w/o considering, among other things, the ability of the patient to pay for the services rendered. That law was passed in 1986. Where was the alarmed crowd warning that the feds could mandate virtually any business to provide their products and services to people in need w/o considering the ability of the people to pay for those products and services? Has the federal government actually mandated any such thing on any business over the last quarter century? Of course not.

Giving the Feds the power to force citizens to buy products opens up a lot of potential abuse.

The feds have the power to mandate business to provide products and services w/o the consumer having to pay. No potential for abuse there?

[luckytxn 2,263]

The feds mandate that hospitals treat patients in emegency care w/o considering, among other things, the ability of the patient to pay for the services rendered. That law was passed in 1986. Where was the alarmed crowd warning that the feds could mandate virtually any business to provide their products and services to people in need w/o considering the ability of the people to pay for those products and services? Has the federal government actually mandated any such thing on any business over the last quarter century? Of course not.

The feds have the power to mandate business to provide products and services w/o the consumer having to pay. No potential for abuse there?

Did SCOTUS say it was a right?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Did SCOTUS say it was a right?

It is my view that both laws should be viewed together and either upheld or stricken together.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Did SCOTUS say it was a right?

That's not the issue. The law passed in 1986 and it stands to this day. There's no more potential for abuse in the health insurance mandate than there is in the mandate to treat people even if they cannot pay for that treatment. Plain and simple. I am tired of paying for all these fcuking freeloaders that dump their health care cost onto me and my family. Freeloaders stiff responsible citizens and residents to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year. Every year. Time they take some personal responsibility themselves. Else, I say, kick them to the curb. They show up at the ER w/o the ability to pay? Don't let the door kick them in the ####### on their way out.

[Leatherneck 693]

So far today it -- ain't sounding good for for Obama care.

[SMOKE 1,426]

So far today it -- ain't sounding good for for Obama care.

yah & the uber lefties here are getting wound up.