Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate

Democracy4Sale wrote: No more than being forced to buy insurance if you have a car. Nobody forces you to drive a car... But there is no way you can go through your entire life and not need some form of healthcare at some point. Since you can't "opt-out" of needing health care at some point in your life, it's about time those who are freeloading off the system by using the emergency rooms start paying something into the system to offset their care. In the end, it makes it cheaper for everyone.

And I frankly don't give a flip about the phony "liberty" issue. In some states you're not "at liberty" to ride motorcycles without helmets; in some states you're not "at liberty" to use celllphones while driving a vehicle... Life is tough...

I explained this. You have a right to exist without any inputs or outputs from govt or business - this is a liberty. You don't have a right to drive outright, that permission is given to you solely by the govt when you are not on your own land (and maybe if you are if you live in a place w socialist zoning laws). So when the permission to drive is given to you by the govt, they can take it away. If we entitle the government and our fellow citizens to fine simply for existing, then where does it stop? What would be out of bounds for fines and how to you make sure that we don't go down the slippery slope.

You agree and of your own free will buy the auto insurance. You accept that if you don't you cannot drive, driving is a permission that depends on you getting insurance, license, buying a car, maintaining it, buying gas, in many states getting inspections, being a certain age, seeing well enough etc....but you enter into that contract because you want to in order to drive. If you don't there is no penalty financially, you just don't get to drive. This is wrong, but we have accepted this and in regards to the contract, you are not forced to sign it, unless you want to drive. In order to get health insurance, which you may need to legally EXIST in the US soon, you must sign a contract against your will, therefor not a legal or binding contract, so again, which insurers are going to insure without a contract (I am asking for names of firms or people that will insure with no binding agreement). Your auto insurance contract is binding. This is not about health insurance law, I am asking a contract law question, as the health insurance is dependent on a contract.

The health insurance law will not save money, health insurance costs are going to go up and more people will ask for services. We will all be paying more. If you live in CO, call an insurer, your same insurer and ask what it will cost to get the same plan you have now in a gar. issue state and you will see where YOUR costs are going to go in CO. I bet you wont, I also bet the cost is TWO to FOUR times higher, so that more people are covered. Get ready CO, your costs were very low for insurance, so they are going to skyrocket if the law passes. THis is not tough, all we have to do is wait and if it is passed, we can revisit this and see who was right, just like all the fools assuring landslides in the election. We can come back and look, in fact we can go back to the school debate in Fairplay and look at the costs, the deaths that we voted for, the new buildings from voting the BOCC back in, we can actually look at history locally or nationally and see who is right and wrong on this crap after it happens.

I could care less about your entitlements, especially since the cost for them are our liberties. Without liberties, you couldn't even bitch about your lack of entitlements, let alone get them. Keep that in mind.

Learn some liberty. here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

How about home owners insurance, also not required. How about unemployment insurance, you are not forced to buy that and you employer is only forced to pay it when you are working and earning, once you quit or get fired, no one pays for that - so shouldn't you start paying. Why not have the unemployment system be private, like health insurance. or semi like we are proposing? What about food stamps. In fact, why not use this system for education. Get education insurance for those that cannot pay for schooling directly, in stead of public funding. We can just require everyone who has kids to buy school insurance....gee they are going to need education sooner or later. It just does not end.

In fact, since we consider this a better system than taxation, we could replace all tax funding situations with mandated insurance and have a better nation.....(this is a joke, but a logical extension of the argument to insure what we need.)

The deeper question is what is the best way to fund the public goods that people feel are public? Is this new system better? if so should it not replace the systems where we tax? or is the tax and govt redist better? Why use both? what makes one better in one case and another in another case. Just take education and health care and explain the funding difference, try explaining it to yourself.

Democracy4Sale wrote: No more than being forced to buy insurance if you have a car. Nobody forces you to drive a car... But there is no way you can go through your entire life and not need some form of healthcare at some point. Since you can't "opt-out" of needing health care at some point in your life, it's about time those who are freeloading off the system by using the emergency rooms start paying something into the system to offset their care. In the end, it makes it cheaper for everyone.

And I frankly don't give a flip about the phony "liberty" issue. In some states you're not "at liberty" to ride motorcycles without helmets; in some states you're not "at liberty" to use celllphones while driving a vehicle... Life is tough...

Well... Nancy Pelosi gives a flip about liberty...

The Affordable Care Act is “about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the American people,” Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill. She said it “unlocks” them from a job to pursue happiness without the threat of losing their health insurance.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77160.html

When will you liberals make up your mind. You don't give a flip, you do give a flip. Nancy gives a flip. Simple answer to your question. You don't HAVE to drive anything, you don't HAVE to own a cell phone, you don't HAVE to own a home, none of those things you keep mentioning do you HAVE to HAVE. And yes, there are people that can go through their whole live not HAVING to own a car. They live in places called CITIES. I was born and raised in New York City, I knew MANY people who never had any need to own a car, lived their all their lives, and never owned a car.

The Affordable Care Act in it's essence is saying you HAVE to purchase something to live in this country. That is a liberty issue and it's not phony. Your argument does not hold water.

popcorn eater wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: No more than being forced to buy insurance if you have a car. Nobody forces you to drive a car... But there is no way you can go through your entire life and not need some form of healthcare at some point. Since you can't "opt-out" of needing health care at some point in your life, it's about time those who are freeloading off the system by using the emergency rooms start paying something into the system to offset their care. In the end, it makes it cheaper for everyone.

And I frankly don't give a flip about the phony "liberty" issue. In some states you're not "at liberty" to ride motorcycles without helmets; in some states you're not "at liberty" to use celllphones while driving a vehicle... Life is tough...

I explained this. You have a right to exist without any inputs or outputs from govt or business - this is a liberty. You don't have a right to drive outright, that permission is given to you solely by the govt when you are not on your own land (and maybe if you are if you live in a place w socialist zoning laws). So when the permission to drive is given to you by the govt, they can take it away. If we entitle the government and our fellow citizens to fine simply for existing, then where does it stop? What would be out of bounds for fines and how to you make sure that we don't go down the slippery slope.

You agree and of your own free will buy the auto insurance. You accept that if you don't you cannot drive, driving is a permission that depends on you getting insurance, license, buying a car, maintaining it, buying gas, in many states getting inspections, being a certain age, seeing well enough etc....but you enter into that contract because you want to in order to drive. If you don't there is no penalty financially, you just don't get to drive. This is wrong, but we have accepted this and in regards to the contract, you are not forced to sign it, unless you want to drive. In order to get health insurance, which you may need to legally EXIST in the US soon, you must sign a contract against your will, therefor not a legal or binding contract, so again, which insurers are going to insure without a contract (I am asking for names of firms or people that will insure with no binding agreement). Your auto insurance contract is binding. This is not about health insurance law, I am asking a contract law question, as the health insurance is dependent on a contract.

The health insurance law will not save money, health insurance costs are going to go up and more people will ask for services. We will all be paying more. If you live in CO, call an insurer, your same insurer and ask what it will cost to get the same plan you have now in a gar. issue state and you will see where YOUR costs are going to go in CO. I bet you wont, I also bet the cost is TWO to FOUR times higher, so that more people are covered. Get ready CO, your costs were very low for insurance, so they are going to skyrocket if the law passes. THis is not tough, all we have to do is wait and if it is passed, we can revisit this and see who was right, just like all the fools assuring landslides in the election. We can come back and look, in fact we can go back to the school debate in Fairplay and look at the costs, the deaths that we voted for, the new buildings from voting the BOCC back in, we can actually look at history locally or nationally and see who is right and wrong on this crap after it happens.

I could care less about your entitlements, especially since the cost for them are our liberties. Without liberties, you couldn't even bitch about your lack of entitlements, let alone get them. Keep that in mind.

Learn some liberty. here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

How about home owners insurance, also not required. How about unemployment insurance, you are not forced to buy that and you employer is only forced to pay it when you are working and earning, once you quit or get fired, no one pays for that - so shouldn't you start paying. Why not have the unemployment system be private, like health insurance. or semi like we are proposing? What about food stamps. In fact, why not use this system for education. Get education insurance for those that cannot pay for schooling directly, in stead of public funding. We can just require everyone who has kids to buy school insurance....gee they are going to need education sooner or later. It just does not end.

In fact, since we consider this a better system than taxation, we could replace all tax funding situations with mandated insurance and have a better nation.....(this is a joke, but a logical extension of the argument to insure what we need.)

The deeper question is what is the best way to fund the public goods that people feel are public? Is this new system better? if so should it not replace the systems where we tax? or is the tax and govt redist better? Why use both? what makes one better in one case and another in another case. Just take education and health care and explain the funding difference, try explaining it to yourself.

Very well said :thumbsup

Martin Ent Inc wrote: The Supreme Court will soon announce its ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law passed in 2010, and for many legal observers who have worked in the court and argued cases before the justices, the federal government's defense of the measure in March did not inspire confidence

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Whats worse than lookin stupid on a public forum?

Lookin like a stupid a-hole on a public forum. People hoping and gloating over other people losing thier healthcare...How embarassing


You want a rag to wipe the egg off your face Martin?

WE the people win, while corporate Americas usefull idiots lose

DEAL WITH IT!


Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Big Bar-B-que up in upper Burland this weekend..I'm serving up heaping helpings of Grilled, Fried and Baked Crow, and you havent lived until you tried my wifes Crow Cacciatore.


ALL YOU CAN EAT!

Lucky Luckhurst wrote: Big Bar-B-que up in upper Burland this weekend..I'm serving up heaping helpings of Grilled, Fried and Baked Crow, and you havent lived until you tried my wifes Crow Cacciatore.


ALL YOU CAN EAT!

rofllol rofllol :thumbsup:

Lucky Luckhurst wrote: Big Bar-B-que up in upper Burland this weekend..I'm serving up heaping helpings of Grilled, Fried and Baked Crow, and you havent lived until you tried my wifes Crow Cacciatore.


ALL YOU CAN EAT!

What time is the party? Is there free beer too?

And the best part... after eating that under-cooked Crow and catching West Nile Virus, we all get free Obama-care!

LOL wrote:

Lucky Luckhurst wrote: Big Bar-B-que up in upper Burland this weekend..I'm serving up heaping helpings of Grilled, Fried and Baked Crow, and you havent lived until you tried my wifes Crow Cacciatore.


ALL YOU CAN EAT!

What time is the party? Is there free beer too?

And the best part... after eating that under-cooked Crow and catching West Nile Virus, we all get free Obama-care!

Really? Where did you see "free"? Oh, sorry...As usual, you weren't really trying to say anything that was true... My bad....

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Lucky Luckhurst wrote: Big Bar-B-que up in upper Burland this weekend..I'm serving up heaping helpings of Grilled, Fried and Baked Crow, and you havent lived until you tried my wifes Crow Cacciatore.


ALL YOU CAN EAT!

rofllol rofllol :thumbsup:

Dam right it's been a good day!