Mandate Health Insurance?

understood, and agreed ... but still short.

even when confined to state bounds, the law still mandates healthcare and puts the $ burden for some on the taxpayers with not so much as a whimper of discomfort from the right side of the building.

why would that be? Originally Posted by CJ7

Because those on the right in Massachussetts that do not like it, have the right to move, as so many have done throughout history to avoid state laws they did not agree with.

those in poverty have the $$ to move .. good to know.


it strikes me as strange republicans coast to coast, border to border, refuse to speak up and at least try to protect their counterparts. Apparently, republican hypocrisy knows no bounds.

who cares what romney was in 89, Heritage was republican, then and now


quit deflecting Teach Originally Posted by CJ7

It is his only defense.

Without out deflecting he would have to confront the truth. He appears Histronic. Simple to figure out once you make that diagnosis.



What people do not understand is that the Constitution worked fine when we competed with each other on a state by state basis. We are now in a global market. Our business model (or constitution) was set up for a localized market. Our form of government is to slow to react to global conditions. That and high oil prices are killing us.

those in poverty have the $$ to move .. good to know.


it strikes me as strange republicans coast to coast, border to border, refuse to speak up and at least try to protect their counterparts. Apparently, republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. Originally Posted by CJ7

They have the right to move, how depends on the individual.

If I were a Republican, perhaps I would.

FG drivers insurance doesnt apply to everyone and you dont have to have it if you dont drive. Health insurance applies to a lot more people and offers no alternatives like drivers insurance. IE you dont have to drive. Originally Posted by Grifter

But you need to ask yourself, why is it required should one own a car? The answer is because a driver not having car insurance puts other people at a financial risk. And for people who don't have health insurance, they too are putting other people (hospitals, doctors, etc) at a financial risk. So while the car insurance analogy isn't a perfect one on the surface, the underlying rationale for the requirement for both is exactly the same.

Furthermore, i would argue that it's a million times more likely that someone will ultimately need to use health insurance than it is they'll need to use car insurance. Yet car insurance can be required, but health insurance can't?

They have the right to move, how depends on the individual.

If I were a Republican, perhaps I would. Originally Posted by nwarounder

should the healthcare law remain on the books after the SC makes a ruling, perhaps the republicans will move. Mexico has a favorable climate.

should the healthcare law remain on the books after the SC makes a ruling, perhaps the republicans will move. Mexico has a favorable climate. Originally Posted by CJ7

Most Republican states have laws with the ink still drying ready to enact and repeal Obamacare at the state level, some already have repealed parts of it, thus omitting their citizens and businesses from the mandate. Of course, it will be a mess with the IRS but it's not looking like they care. Should be interesting either way.

Most Republican states have laws with the ink still drying ready to enact and repeal Obamacare at the state level, some already have repealed parts of it, thus omitting their citizens and businesses from the mandate. Of course, it will be a mess with the IRS but it's not looking like they care. Should be interesting either way. Originally Posted by nwarounder

Interesting, indeed.

The Federal Government has very limited powers and responsibilities. Those not specifically provided to them by the constitution are not their concern.

Thus, successful or not, Romney care mandated and instituted at the state level is constitutional. Obama care is unconstitutional.

So to borrow the underlying rational conclusion from Doove. The founders wanted to leave things of the states up to the states. If you don't like what your state is doing you can choose to move, you can choose to stay and try to change it or you can choose to live with it. Either way you do not have to give up your rights as an American citizen but you still have a choice. My choice would be not to move to MA. Others may think the health care law is a great reason to move there. Choices, Thank God we still have some.

Sweet! So if I ever get really sick I can fly over to the UK and check into a hospital and it will be free, right? Originally Posted by nwarounder

Erm, if you are a British citizen then yes mate you get free healthcare.

Erm, if you are a British citizen then yes mate you get free healthcare. Originally Posted by liberaldevil

Ohhh, so it is really not a noble, human rights issue for all human beings, just for UK citizens only. Gotcha, thought they did with what we do for Mexico now for a second there.

A "bloody human right" is automatic and requires no one to perform a task for you to have it. Think about it; the right to be free, the right to speak out, the right to meet your fellow soccer (football) thugs, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right not to incriminate yourself. All of these rights (when you have them) require no one to do anything on your behalf, they just are. There is no right to healthcare because someone has to provide that right. In fact it would bring back slavery on healthcare workers because if there was not enough to go around then they would be forced to provide this "right". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I disagree. But, then I would wouldn't I. I vote Labour back in the UK which in this country makes me a red flag flying communist. I'll happily admit I am a socialist but not a communist. And, its football mate not soccer. And, I myself am not a "football hooligan". But, I suppose I do have the right to meet up with them down at the pub. I do appreciate you giving me permission to do so however. Cheers!

And, it should be a right to have universal healthcare across the board. Obviously, someone provides it! How else would you get sorted out health wise if someone didn't provide that need? The point is healthcare isn't just for the wealthy. And, if I'm being honest I am indeed one of the wealthy(upper 10% in the UK as well as the States) that feel its a countries duty to supply such a service. I make enough money at my job where I'd hardly feel any tax to cover such a need. I suppose it is up to the populous in this country whether you want a universal program or whether to keep things in the horrid state they are currently. I'll just agree to disagree with you on this issue.

Ohhh, so it is really not a noble, human rights issue for all human beings, just for UK citizens only. Gotcha, thought they did with what we do for Mexico now for a second there. Originally Posted by nwarounder

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. Right, my point is if "we" can do universal healthcare in a country as small as wee Britain it can be done here in America--and better.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say. Right, my point is if "we" can do universal healthcare in a country as small as wee Britain it can be done here in America--and better. Originally Posted by liberaldevil

NP, the point is this is not a universal healthcare law. It simply demands that Americans purchase a product because the government says you have to do so. I would probably support a law that is similar to Britain or Canada where tax dollars collected pay healthcare expenses, but this is not even close to that. The real issue at hand is the interstate commerce clause of our Constitution and if this law passes, in essence, it will set a precedence that the government can require citizens to purchase anything they want us to in the future. I personally don't want to drive a Chevy Volt, simply because King Obama says I have to buy one. Get it?

Insurance isnt interstate commerce is it?

If it is, and I work in LA for a company HQ'd in NYC, and have an insurance plan through said company, are they breaking a law or the constitution?