General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coqui View Post
Loophole.

I'm guessing they will use the loophole as an excuse to pass a "fix" bill which also includes a number of other tagalongs and possibly some pork.

When people oppose it, they'll say "you want to deny healthcare to children?"
__________________
09 F9
Old 03-29-2010, 10:37 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#211  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Coqui
 
Coqui's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
I'm guessing they will use the loophole as an excuse to pass a "fix" bill which also includes a number of other tagalongs and possibly some pork.

When people oppose it, they'll say "you want to deny healthcare to children?"

Of course....it's politics.
__________________
I lack boobs and have a penis
Old 03-29-2010, 12:12 PM Coqui is offline  
Reply With Quote
#212  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loner View Post
Good evidence!

GAO motherfucker.
also
AT&T just took a billion hit against earnings because of it.

Open your fucking eyes dildo breath
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-29-2010, 12:33 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#213  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loner View Post
I don't know that you have to sign any paperwork. You are a U.S. citizen. Inherent in accepting your US citizenship is an agreement to abide by federal law. Don't like the law? You have the choice of either a)dealing with it or, b)renouncing your citizenship and going somewhere else that doesn't have that same law.

I agree that there's not a true precedent for healthcare. But lack of precedent does not dictate that the law will not pass. Just means they'll be treading new ground on the subject, which they already knew they were doing.

Um no, federal law has to agree with the constitution. No such powers were granted to the fed to make you buy things.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-29-2010, 12:36 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#214  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
I am not sure how a supremecy/commerce clause would would affect this. Banning the sale of somerhing is not the same as requiring the purchase of something.

You will have to elucidate for me if you meant some other aspect.

There's two interesting threads from Raich that could play a role here - first is unlimiting the "economic activities" standard from the Lopez / Morrison line to a new, much more vague "class of activities" standard. In Raich the majority determined that even though Angel was not engaged in an economic activity (by growing and smoking her own raw marijuana) her individual, intrastate action is still part of a class of economic activity (because by growing her own marijuana she no longer had to purchase it on the grey market, which spills over to affect the aggregate marijuana economy). This could pertain to the individual mandate because the (non)decision to not purchase insurance could then be read as a decision within the class of activities being regulated (since not buying insurance affects the activity of the aggregate insurance economy which the federal government does have clear authority to regulate).

Second, and a bit less important, is Scalia's Necessary and Proper Clause concurrence where he essentially argues that as long as the federal government has created a nationwide regulatory regime, it can do just about anything to enforce it. A lot of conservative legal scholars think Scalia went off the rails at that point because he pretty much set up an argument for unlimited federal power.
Old 03-29-2010, 02:01 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#215  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingstudent View Post
There's two interesting threads from Raich that could play a role here - first is unlimiting the "economic activities" standard from the Lopez / Morrison line to a new, much more vague "class of activities" standard. In Raich the majority determined that even though Angel was not engaged in an economic activity (by growing and smoking her own raw marijuana) her individual, intrastate action is still part of a class of economic activity (because by growing her own marijuana she no longer had to purchase it on the grey market, which spills over to affect the aggregate marijuana economy). This could pertain to the individual mandate because the (non)decision to not purchase insurance could then be read as a decision within the class of activities being regulated (since not buying insurance affects the activity of the aggregate insurance economy which the federal government does have clear authority to regulate).

Second, and a bit less important, is Scalia's Necessary and Proper Clause concurrence where he essentially argues that as long as the federal government has created a nationwide regulatory regime, it can do just about anything to enforce it. A lot of conservative legal scholars think Scalia went off the rails at that point because he pretty much set up an argument for unlimited federal power.

Seems less applicable because medical insurance is illegal to purchase across state lines.
Since interstate commerce in that regard is not permitted, I fail to see how one could rule that a federal regulatory statute applied.
__________________
09 F9
Old 03-29-2010, 02:09 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#216  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
This entire debate is being driven by a huge misnomer anyway ... if the individual mandate were some type of crime enforcement provision then these federalism arguments would make much more sense, but instead it's actually just a tax by a different name. Opponents of the individual mandate are taking a really radical stance, at it's core is the claim that the federal government shouldn't have the authority to collect tax for the general welfare ... even if a challenge slips through the circuits ( which is like a .00001 percent chance ) the Supreme Court won't bite.

edit: Bottom line: the bill was written by intelligent people that made sure the individual mandate's enforcement is expressed as a tax power instead of a police power, this sidesteps the federalism violation that both the Gun Free School Zones and Violence Against Women acts fell to.

Last edited by bingstudent; 03-29-2010 at 02:21 PM..
Old 03-29-2010, 02:10 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#217  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Seems less applicable because medical insurance is illegal to purchase across state lines.
Since interstate commerce in that regard is not permitted, I fail to see how one could rule that a federal regulatory statute applied.

Whether or not an item of commerce crosses state lines hasn't had very much relevance for federalism analysis for the last two decades or so: in Lopez the court spoke favorably of an aggregate effects test ( if an economic activity occurs within a state but the aggregate effect of that activity spills over then it's fair game ); and in Raich the court concedes that the federal government can regulate even the most minute intrastate activity as long as it's part of a larger class of activities that meet muster.
Old 03-29-2010, 02:18 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#218  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Something else that just came to mind is that even if the individual mandate as written was ever voided by the Supreme Court the federal government could just rewrite the law to make the individual mandate a condition for participating in Medicaid. No state would drop the program so they'd all be stuck with the individual mandate.
Old 03-29-2010, 02:26 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#219  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Seems less applicable because medical insurance is illegal to purchase across state lines.
Since interstate commerce in that regard is not permitted, I fail to see how one could rule that a federal regulatory statute applied.

There are national health care companies you know. Any company would be permitted to sell across state lines, they just need to meet the regulatory standards in the state they're selling to (which is of course what the insurance companies want to avoid by getting people to tout "competition across state lines" as a solution).
Old 03-29-2010, 04:20 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#220  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
It doesn't really matter where the insurance is sold, if you go back to the civil rights era federalism decision there are virtually no limits on the federal government's ability to regulate businesses because they all rely on interstate activity to operate.
Old 03-29-2010, 06:05 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#221  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
A significant amount of citizens don't have access to many services yet we still consider them "best"
Best automobiles?
Best air travel?
How about best insurance of any other kind?

The entire country is entitled to required health care and it has been that way for a long time.
However, for the time being we have access to outstanding care if we choose to get a plan which helps us pay for services we want.

The "for-profit" system has historically yielded good services at competitive prices.
You may think the prices are "high" but the alternative is "high" prices subsidized for you by others, or artificially low prices compromising quality.

You consider them best, but that does not make it so in anyones mind but blind patriots and people who listen to the talkingpoints.

Its not about choice, if it had been about choice, there wouldn't be such an impetus to make sure _everyone_ has access to decent healthcare. Its about if you/your employer can afford it, if you dont have any preexisting conditions and if your insurancecompany doesnt decide to drop you the fuck out if you suddenly need the insurance you have been paying for.

the alternatives doesn't necessarily compromise quality.
And no, I do not mind paying more out of pocket to help those who need help
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 03-30-2010, 02:36 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#222  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingstudent View Post
There's two interesting threads from Raich that could play a role here - first is unlimiting the "economic activities" standard from the Lopez / Morrison line to a new, much more vague "class of activities" standard. In Raich the majority determined that even though Angel was not engaged in an economic activity (by growing and smoking her own raw marijuana) her individual, intrastate action is still part of a class of economic activity (because by growing her own marijuana she no longer had to purchase it on the grey market, which spills over to affect the aggregate marijuana economy). This could pertain to the individual mandate because the (non)decision to not purchase insurance could then be read as a decision within the class of activities being regulated (since not buying insurance affects the activity of the aggregate insurance economy which the federal government does have clear authority to regulate).

Second, and a bit less important, is Scalia's Necessary and Proper Clause concurrence where he essentially argues that as long as the federal government has created a nationwide regulatory regime, it can do just about anything to enforce it. A lot of conservative legal scholars think Scalia went off the rails at that point because he pretty much set up an argument for unlimited federal power.


By that asinine argument they can make me buy cotton swabs and condoms. And which brands to buy.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-30-2010, 12:36 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#223  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
You consider them best, but that does not make it so in anyones mind but blind patriots and people who listen to the talkingpoints.

There would be more dignity in your position if you didn't presume anybody opposing you is a "blind patriot" listening to the talkingpoints.

In the current system people can, and do, get treated for their serious medical issues promptly (compared with most other social systems).

Quote:
Its not about choice, if it had been about choice, there wouldn't be such an impetus to make sure _everyone_ has access to decent healthcare. Its about if you/your employer can afford it, if you dont have any preexisting conditions and if your insurancecompany doesnt decide to drop you the fuck out if you suddenly need the insurance you have been paying for.
I challenge you to show me somebody in America who doesn't have access to decent healthcare and also a definition if "decent healthcare".

If you and your employer can afford good health insurance is (or was) a separate issue to whether or not you could get necessary health care.

Pre-existing conditions do not exempt you from health care. Previously, they may have excluded you from certain health insurances. This law changes the insurance model. Pre-existing conditions have always impacts the premise of insurance coverage because insurance, by its nature, is to defer risk of *potential* future problems and not *definite* current problems. Now we will be subsidizing insurance companies to compensate for the legal dismantling of the model.

Insurance companies dropping carriers following contraction or diagnosis could have (and should have) been regulated without such sweeping fundamental changes to the insurance model.
Who has fallen for the talking points now? You've fallen to the false dilemma that the only option is the massive overhaul. You've consented to the axe instead of the scalpel.

Quote:
the alternatives doesn't necessarily compromise quality.
And no, I do not mind paying more out of pocket to help those who need help
Increasing demand, mandating lowered costs, eliminating some of the multiple payers and not increasing providers.... this is economics 101. It will create a shortage and (more) monopolistic waste. You don't agree? Take it up with the economists, not me.


I do not mind paying to help the helpless. In fact, I consider it my moral obligation.
I do mind paying to help those who do not help themselves.
In fact, we do them a great disservice by "giving them fish" instead of "teaching them to fish" but that's how our government wants it: make them dependent for secure political capital. Read up on Murray & Herrnstein.
__________________
09 F9
Old 03-30-2010, 12:53 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#224  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
By that asinine argument they can make me buy cotton swabs and condoms. And which brands to buy.

Only if cotton swabs and condoms are being regulated under a nationwide regulatory scheme ... but otherwise, yes. Absolutely true. Blame the conservitarded Bush justice department.
Old 03-30-2010, 01:11 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#225  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.