EPTyayyyyy american politics
The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
yayyyyy american politics | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:27 Stratos_speAr wrote: Talking about the Constitution, I think this highlights the main problem with it. The Constitution is necessary and the most important document for American poltiics. However, the thing is fucking old. It's absolutely archaic and is terrible at dealing with issues that a modern society will have. So how do we reconcile this issue? You mean it's terrible at forcing citizens to buy a product from a private company? That isn't an issue that needs to be reconciled, it's an idea which should be rejected completely. The fact that the constitution succeeds in rejecting this horrible idea tells me it isn't as archaic and outdated as most people think. People need to have a little more respect for the document which has protected freedoms for hundreds of years, and is still protecting people with this very issue. But apparently to many people "freedom" itself is an archaic and outdated notion. | ||
|
KangaRuthless
United States304 Posts
I somewhat support Obamacare because: 1. It forces people to insure themselves, therefore costing me, the taxpayer, less money in the long-term. Having to pay for someone to go to the emergency room costs a heck of a lot more than covering their annual check up. 2. When people have healthcare, they are more likely to visit the doctor. A healthy population is more productive, which helps the national economy. My concerns: 1. We still haven't fixed the pre-existing conditions controversy 2. What will the government do in the future as far as deciding what is mandated for an individual to have? 3. I am always hesitant when the Federal government asks for more power tl;dr I'm divided but lean towards Obamacare because in the long run it will benefit the economy | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7213 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:27 Stratos_speAr wrote: Talking about the Constitution, I think this highlights the main problem with it. The Constitution is necessary and the most important document for American poltiics. However, the thing is fucking old. It's absolutely archaic and is terrible at dealing with issues that a modern society will have. So how do we reconcile this issue? It's clearly constitutional to tax and provide universal health care. We have some government run health care programs already in medicare, medicaid, and more. It doesn't seem like the constitution is standing in the way of fixing our health care system, but it might bar this terrible law requiring Americans to line the pockets of private insurers. | ||
|
Gluon
Netherlands380 Posts
For some reason those guys seem to feel that their constitution is holy and all should abide by it. It was written a long time ago and anyone with some common sense wouldn't expect the writers to have been able to foresee all future complications. But americans apparently cling dogmatically to this constitution, and deeming something 'unconstitutional' appears to be a valid discussion-ending argument, no matter what the opposing arguments are? I understand that a constitution is of vital importance to any country, but a system in which it is used in such ways can hardly be the optimal one can it? | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:32 liberal wrote: You mean it's terrible at forcing citizens to buy a product from a private company? That isn't an issue that needs to be reconciled, it's an idea which should be rejected completely. The fact that the constitution succeeds in rejecting this horrible idea tells me it isn't as archaic and outdated as most people think. People need to have a little more respect for the document which has protected freedoms for hundreds of years, and is still protecting people with this very issue. But apparently to many people "freedom" itself is an archaic and outdated notion. but individual mandate is necessary, so we are confronted with a new problem. how do we reconcile its incompatibility with the constitution? what is the solution that is acceptable and in accordance with the constitution? it's not one of these little deals where we can be like "well, no solution is possible". solution must be employed or health care faces serious problem | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:37 KangaRuthless wrote: My concerns: 1. We still haven't fixed the pre-existing conditions controversy 2. What will the government do in the future as far as deciding what is mandated for an individual to have? 3. I am always hesitant when the Federal government asks for more power tl;dr I'm divided but lean towards Obamacare because in the long run it will benefit the economy 1. Yeah, blame the republicans who bitch about everything. 2. It's not a slippery slope, don't even start that kind of thinking. 3. It's not "asking for more power", it's "what does the Constitution permit us to do when we encounter new obstacles that are detrimental to our nation" | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:42 stevarius wrote: 1. Yeah, blame the republicans who bitch about everything. 2. It's not a slippery slope, don't even start that kind of thinking. 3. It's not "asking for more power", it's "what does the Constitution permit us to do when we encounter new obstacles that are detrimental to our nation" 1) blame game, I don't care... 2) You are right, it's not a slippery slope. It's a direct leap off a cliff. 3) Forcing citizens to purchase a product from private companies isn't an increase in power? Are you delusional? | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:41 FallDownMarigold wrote: but individual mandate is necessary, so we are confronted with a new problem. how do we reconcile its incompatibility with the constitution? what is the solution that is acceptable and in accordance with the constitution? it's not one of these little deals where we can be like "well, no solution is possible". solution must be employed or health care faces serious problem Reform is necessary, the individual mandate is not. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:39 NovaTheFeared wrote: It's clearly constitutional to tax and provide universal health care. We have some government run health care programs already in medicare, medicaid, and more. It doesn't seem like the constitution is standing in the way of fixing our health care system, but it might bar this terrible law requiring Americans to line the pockets of private insurers. Oddly enough, those government run health care programs are making us broke! | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:49 liberal wrote: Reform is necessary, the individual mandate is not. So i'll ask again: what is the solution that is acceptable and in accordance with the constitution? hint: I know you don't know the answer to this. What i'm getting at, is that individual mandate is the best option on the table right now, despite the fact that it could possibly be construed as unconstitutional. So either A) find a loophole and go forth with it, or B) find another solution. There is no C) ignore problem, move along | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:42 stevarius wrote: 1. Yeah, blame the republicans who bitch about everything. 2. It's not a slippery slope, don't even start that kind of thinking. 3. It's not "asking for more power", it's "what does the Constitution permit us to do when we encounter new obstacles that are detrimental to our nation" It would expand government power, congress doesnt have the power or authority to pass UHC. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:16 Lockitupv2 wrote: It would expand government power, congress doesnt have the power or authority to pass UHC. It's funny that you can say that before the Supreme Court makes a decision. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:28 WolfintheSheep wrote: It's funny that you can say that before the Supreme Court makes a decision. Well, I could, ya know, read the constitution before they pass a ruling. | ||
|
GreenManalishi
Canada834 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:48 liberal wrote: 3) Forcing citizens to purchase a product from private companies isn't an increase in power? Are you delusional? Doesn't the government already do this in regards to car insurance? There are plenty of examples of governments coercing their citizens into purchasing a private good. Passports needs photos only available at specialty print shops for example. Mandatory clothing in public laws. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
Rather than impose a tax on the people, Congress decided invoke its regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause. But because the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power that persons MUST engage in economic activity in litigation, the Government has been forced to rely heavily on the Necessary and Proper Clause. But, the individual mandate is neither necessary or proper." Taken from Randy Barnett's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee February 2011. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:35 GreenManalishi wrote: Doesn't the government already do this in regards to car insurance? There are plenty of examples of governments coercing their citizens into purchasing a private good. Passports needs photos only available at specialty print shops for example. Mandatory clothing in public laws. The state's have powers that the federal government does not. It is states that require car insurance. Your passport example is wrong on 2 points: First, it isn't necessary to get your photo from a specialty print shop. You can get it anywhere, even print it yourself, it just has to meet some basic requirements. Second, passports are only necessary for traveling abroad, which means they are based on behavior, while the health care mandate forces you to purchase just for being a citizen of the nation. Your clothing example is also wrong, because those are not federal laws. The city of San Francisco, for example, allows people to be naked in public. | ||
|
Lockitupv2
United States496 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:35 GreenManalishi wrote: Doesn't the government already do this in regards to car insurance? There are plenty of examples of governments coercing their citizens into purchasing a private good. Passports needs photos only available at specialty print shops for example. Mandatory clothing in public laws. Nope, you can take your own photo, it still has to meet the rules however. You dont need a drivers license to drive on your property. Car insurance is at the state level not federal. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:35 GreenManalishi wrote: Doesn't the government already do this in regards to car insurance? There are plenty of examples of governments coercing their citizens into purchasing a private good. Passports needs photos only available at specialty print shops for example. Mandatory clothing in public laws. The most obvious difference between the Affordable Care Act and car insurance is that the citizenry has the option to not own or drive a vehicle. The ACA implies that by virtue of simply being alive, persons who were not otherwise engaged in economic activity, must now engage in activity. It is the very definition of a slippery slope when Congress can commandeer the citizenry to do what is simply convenient to their efforts. | ||
|
Akta
447 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote: I think you misunderstood. As far as I can tell it was about changing lawsWould sort of defeat the purpose of a CONSTITUTION wouldn't it? Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore! -.- Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion. | ||
| ||
