Another blow to Obamacare, this time its - U.S. appeals court in Atlanta

[fskimospy]

The actual cost of health care are what needs to be addressed, not the insurance. The cost of insurance are but a by product of the insane cost of health care, and medications.

They are heavily related.

 

[Xellos2099]

The actual cost of health care are what needs to be addressed, not the insurance. The cost of insurance are but a by product of the insane cost of health care, and medications.

I been saying this for a long time but no one listen. They blame insurance company for the high cost.

 

[xj0hnx]

They are heavily related.

Of course they are heavily related, as medical cost go up, so do insurance premiums. As more and more people try to defer more and more cost to their insurance premiums go up. Do you think that insurance companies are just going to go into the red for the sheer joy of helping people pay their exorbitant medical bills? They are a business.

Until the cost of medical care, and medicine is reigned in none of your pipe dreams about free medical care for all are going to happen.

 

[xj0hnx]

I been saying this for a long time but no one listen. They blame insurance company for the high cost.

No need to address the actual problem when you have a bogeyman to pin it all on.

 

[sactoking]

No need to address the actual problem when you have a bogeyman to pin it all on.

Indeed. The national "discussion" on the topic is absolutely worthless because 99% of the participants in the discussion don't know the fundamental differences between 'health care' and 'health insurance'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It most certainly is regulating how people purchase it, as every last one of us purchases health care in our lives. The idea that someone could choose not to participate in the health care market is a dangerous fiction.

And everyone is affected by crime whether you are robbed or not. 10K for not carrying a firearm.

You choose to empower the government to make you do virtually anything it wants. I do not.

 

[fskimospy]

And everyone is affected by crime whether you are robbed or not. 10K for not carrying a firearm.

You choose to empower the government to make you do virtually anything it wants. I do not.

Everyone is not necessarily affected by crime regardless of whether they are a victim of it. Furthermore where is your evidence that each person carrying a firearm would lead to a decrease in crime?

Terrible analogy is terrible.

Also, this seems to be getting into the old onion article of the person being a passionate defender of what he thinks the Constitution says. The general consensus (not unanimous by any means, but still) is that the Constitution allows for this. It doesn't matter what you or I think it says, it matters what the Supreme Court thinks it says, and they have an awfully expansive view of the Commerce Clause.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Everyone is not necessarily affected by crime regardless of whether they are a victim of it. Furthermore where is your evidence that each person carrying a firearm would lead to a decrease in crime?

Terrible analogy is terrible.

Also, this seems to be getting into the old onion article of the person being a passionate defender of what he thinks the Constitution says. The general consensus (not unanimous by any means, but still) is that the Constitution allows for this. It doesn't matter what you or I think it says, it matters what the Supreme Court thinks it says, and they have an awfully expansive view of the Commerce Clause.

Well I guess there are only nine people in the country who are entitled to have an opinion about the constitutionality of the our laws. The rest of the us should just do what we're told.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Of course they are heavily related, as medical cost go up, so do insurance premiums. As more and more people try to defer more and more cost to their insurance premiums go up. Do you think that insurance companies are just going to go into the red for the sheer joy of helping people pay their exorbitant medical bills? They are a business.

Until the cost of medical care, and medicine is reigned in none of your pipe dreams about free medical care for all are going to happen.

You're failing to allow for the potentiality that insurance provides. We know that human nature is to be greedy, and so businesses will charge as much as can be paid for a good or service. Normally that's fine because people have limited individual ability to pay, forcing a natural equilibrium. Two outside actors (credit and insurance) act to disrupt that relationship. Both allow people to pay more than they can individually afford, allowing businesses to raise prices higher than are otherwise sustainable.

Prices for health care cannot be reduced until some combination of 3 things occur:

1) The government forces cost controls. This is dangerous, of course, as rent caps have shown. The only way this is likely to even work is if the government nationalizes health care so they can avoid paying investors, and cap payments for all intermediary steps.

2) Credit is reduced for people. So long as individuals are allowed to exceed their potential to pay, business will take advantage of it. You can talk all day about personal responsibility, but especially with health care people are GOING to do whatever is necessary, and that means getting into a situation that destabalizes the entire economy for everyone as they default.

3) Insurance is removed from the equation totally. So long as you have a massed pool of money to draw from, business is able to raise costs almost without limits. Insurance itself is nothing but inefficient capitalized socialism...but without the guiding principles usually associated with a socialist society.

 

[fskimospy]

Well I guess there are only nine people in the country who are entitled to have an opinion about the constitutionality of the our laws. The rest of the us should just do what we're told.

You do realize that's pretty much exactly how our system works, right? I mean you can have your personal opinion that is reflected through your vote, but your vote is basically meaningless, thereby making your opinion basically meaningless.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Everyone is not necessarily affected by crime regardless of whether they are a victim of it.

That's a rather incredible statement. Whether you care you are affected is one thing, but a victim is by definition affected.

Furthermore where is your evidence that each person carrying a firearm would lead to a decrease in crime?

Evidence isn't necessary to determine whether a thing is Constitutional or not. In fact you haven't placed one limitation based on Constitutional law of what Congress can do. All Congress has to do is desire it. There is no mandate that it has to be true or beneficial. They just have to do it. Show otherwise.

Also, this seems to be getting into the old onion article of the person being a passionate defender of what he thinks the Constitution says. The general consensus (not unanimous by any means, but still) is that the Constitution allows for this.

I'm afraid your interpretations of what is allowable hasn't been very good. Obama didn't think there was a legal leg to stand on regarding the budget and the 14th, but you stated categorically that it would be illegal for Obama not to act. An Onion moment perhaps, but it's not quite as you think. What the SCOTUS will permit is always in question, but you appear to think that the Commerce clause allows an unlimited basis for government insertion into our lives. You protest the idea of having a gun, but you provide no basis which would prohibit it, other than you think it's silly. When was "silly" ever a legal prohibition?

 

[fskimospy]

Evidence isn't necessary to determine whether a thing is Constitutional or not. In fact you haven't placed one limitation based on Constitutional law of what Congress can do. All Congress has to do is desire it. There is no mandate that it has to be true or beneficial. They just have to do it. Show otherwise.

Bizarre, fact free accusation that could be disproven by a simple search of my posting history. You know better.

I'm afraid your interpretations of what is allowable hasn't been very good. Obama didn't think there was a legal leg to stand on regarding the budget and the 14th, but you stated categorically that it would be illegal for Obama not to act. An Onion moment perhaps, but it's not quite as you think. What the SCOTUS will permit is always in question, but you appear to think that the Commerce clause allows an unlimited basis for government insertion into our lives. You protest the idea of having a gun, but you provide no basis which would prohibit it, other than you think it's silly. When was "silly" ever a legal prohibition?

Bizarre, laughably poor understanding of what I wrote, the Constitution, Civics 101, and Politics 101. I wrote that Obama had a valid legal argument that he was compelled by the Constitution to act, not that he must put forth such an argument or even that he would. Even if the law did require Obama to act that way, someone would have to petition the courts to force his hand, which obviously no one has done. Do you understand how our legal system works? I'm sure my predictions look bad if you have absolutely no clue as to what I was talking about, but that's getting to be par for the course.

Nowhere have I ever said that the Commerce Clause permits an unlimited basis for government insertion into our lives. This is yet another bizarre, fact free assertion that you've made. As best I can tell it is coming from the fact that you don't have a real argument other than an emotional appeal, and so you're trying to invent positions for me to hold. Please stop.

I don't even know what the commerce clause argument for requiring gun ownership would be. Perhaps you can supply one? Do all people somehow participate in a gun market? Do you believe crime to be commerce? I'm at a loss. Lets be honest with ourselves here. You hate the health care law and you want the courts to strike it down because you lost in the normal democratic process.