Will the Supreme Court condemn this 3 year old girl to die?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Not to be pooping on your post, but there are many childrens hospitals that will take care of this child regardless of their ability to pay. Obama care is not the way.
I agree.

If there is any truth to the article by CNN, then the insurance company would go out of business if they didn't pay. In addition, I doubt they could live with making a decision like that.

It's not like government run health care in the U.S. would save more lives than the free market would anyway.

I'm not buying into what CNN says especially given the time they're saying it.

I'd be glad to donate money to her health care if there is a fund set up for her.
 
Last edited:

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I hope the people outside the courts praying that the justices throw out Obamacare know that they are condemning this 3 year old girl to death.

And I hope people like you are working hard to become doctors, so you can go out and treat people for free. After all, I'd never want to think of you as a huge hypocrite or anything. Certainly, this little girl's life is important enough for you to do that, right?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The court has to determine if something is constitutional or not. Emotional stories about a particular person have nothing to do with it. Want to fix things so that child is covered? Create legislation that can pass constitutional muster to do it.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Destroy the entire nation? That sort of hyperbole is as absurd as the OP's use of a sob story.

Deciding the government can blanket force every citizen to participate in any way with any form of commerce regardless of beliefs, needs, ability to pay, etc? Yeah, I'd say that's essentially destroying the entire nation...at least, any part of it worth a shit.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Deciding the government can blanket force every citizen to participate in any way with any form of commerce regardless of beliefs, needs, ability to pay, etc? Yeah, I'd say that's essentially destroying the entire nation...at least, any part of it worth a shit.

In reality the individual mandate is just an indirect form of taxation. It's not some huge expansion of government power.

Besides, as things stand right now those of us who aren't deadbeats are already being compelled to pay for other people's healthcare.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
In reality the individual mandate is just an indirect form of taxation. It's not some huge expansion of government power.

Besides, as things stand right now those of us who aren't deadbeats are already being compelled to pay for other people's healthcare.

Horse manure. If it was taxation in exchange for government provision I'd be fine with it. It's nothing even slightly related.

Taxation is imposed on all people (or all within a certain set in the case of things like property taxes) as a rate on some exchange/value and then sometimes offers exemptions for various qualifications. In return, all citizens receive generally equal/equitable right to a good or service within certain restrictions. It also mandates the good/service provision abide all the usual public practices (accountability, right to redress, various title protections, etc).

The ACA is a set dollar fine imposed only on some people for failing to participate in private insurance. While some people are able to obtain government options which take the place of private insurance, it is NOT an exemption as in taxation. Moreover, what we receive in return is nothing more than whatever a private 3rd entity dictates, and it is under no requirement of general equality, equitability, etc. In other words, the only thing that's happening is the government REQUIRING citizens to be at the mercy of corporatism. Nothing is gained, but what they choose to give, in the way they choose to give it, and we have next to no recourse in the matter. It is 100% PURE economic fascism/corporatism.

Look, I'm all for health care reform. Lets have tort reform, lets ban all insurance, lets go pure single payer, lets go total socialized, lets nationalize the industry...hell, ANY of those things I could accept before the filth that was the ACA. It's EVERYTHING bad, and NOTHING good.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I agree.

If there is any truth to the article by CNN, then the insurance company would go out of business if they didn't pay. In addition, I doubt they could live with making a decision like that.

It's not like government run health care in the U.S. would save more lives than the free market would anyway.

I'm not buying into what CNN says especially given the time they're saying it.

I'd be glad to donate money to her health care if there is a fund set up for her.

Exactly right . My family has given generiously to many such funds IN MY STATE. But what are the poor going to give ? Nothing exactly what they put into their own personnel well being. The poor are takers not givers . The more than can take the more people join the I want to be poor revolution so I can live without earning that right. Most here believe were animals . Than live by the laws of the jungle. The weak and broken die . Thats what being animal is all about . If you want to be human than be human . Stop WARS 1st. Than everthing else will fall in line.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Bottom line... There just is no logic available when going up against Obamacare.
Especially after the full Obamacare kicks in during 2014.
Then people will reap the full benefits of insurance reform.
And Mitt knows that...... It was his idea.

Sure there is, it is called "follow the US Constitution". While you may find no logic in that, others point at you and laugh for being silly.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Deciding the government can blanket force every citizen to participate in any way with any form of commerce regardless of beliefs, needs, ability to pay, etc? Yeah, I'd say that's essentially destroying the entire nation...at least, any part of it worth a shit.

mortgage tax deduction already destroyed the nation, then
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
Not to be pooping on your post, but there are many childrens hospitals that will take care of this child regardless of their ability to pay.

thats a feel good statement on paper but in reality its totally false.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
mortgage tax deduction already destroyed the nation, then


How is a tax (rate not absolute) deduction to the government on something not everyone participates in the same as forcing EVERY citizen to participate in a private commercial enterprise or face set penalty payment?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
How is a tax (rate not absolute) deduction to the government on something not everyone participates in the same as forcing EVERY citizen to participate in a private commercial enterprise or face set penalty payment?

i choose not to finance a house so my taxes are higher than someone with identical income. how is that any different?
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
i choose not to finance a house so my taxes are higher than someone with identical income. how is that any different?

Only in absolutely every way imaginable.

First, you're talking about tax, not a penalty/fine. Second, you're talking about a deduction (ie benefit), not a penalty/fine. Third, you're talking about something voluntary, not mandated. Fourth, it in no way involves private parties other than the taxpayer. Fifth, taxes aren't equal by design. Sixth, yours deals with an amount determined by a rate, not a set dollar amount.

Rather at the end of the day you end up paying as much more in tax as someone pays in mandate penalty is irrelevant. The principle, method, impacts, and people involved are COMPLETELY different and totally unrelated.

I mean seriously, it's the single WORST comparison I have ever heard online. Hands down. You're better than that dude.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
you can't separate the 'mandate' from the 'penalty.' if i choose not to have medical insurance, i pay more money to the government. if i choose not to finance a house, i pay more money to the government.

substance over form.

the main thrust of this is that the .gov clearly has the ability to use the taxing authority to try to get everyone to have health insurance. set it up this way: your tax is (whatever it happens to be) +1000, but if you have health insurance, you get a credit for 1000.

guess where the penalty is located in the US code.

of course, if it is a tax, then the supreme court has no jurisdiction yet. can't challenge a tax before it goes into effect. but if it is a tax, it's unquestionably within the power of congress.
 
Last edited:

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
The court has to determine if something is constitutional or not. Emotional stories about a particular person have nothing to do with it. Want to fix things so that child is covered? Create legislation that can pass constitutional muster to do it.

Actually, the way our system works is like this:

Propose a bill that will do all you want, as it passes through congress, promise personal fountains, traffic lights in the middle of nowhere, and bridges to deserted islands.

Get it passed.

Wait until the next election.

Blame the other party for the deficit partially caused by your unbudgeted plan.

See, EVERYONE is happy!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Only in absolutely every way imaginable.

First, you're talking about tax, not a penalty/fine. Second, you're talking about a deduction (ie benefit), not a penalty/fine. Third, you're talking about something voluntary, not mandated. Fourth, it in no way involves private parties other than the taxpayer. Fifth, taxes aren't equal by design. Sixth, yours deals with an amount determined by a rate, not a set dollar amount.

Rather at the end of the day you end up paying as much more in tax as someone pays in mandate penalty is irrelevant. The principle, method, impacts, and people involved are COMPLETELY different and totally unrelated.

I mean seriously, it's the single WORST comparison I have ever heard online. Hands down. You're better than that dude.

You have to admit PoW that while technically different it's quite similar. It's a government induced market distortion designed to funnel money to certain industries, and can't be ignored by those who are in a position to choose to take advantage of it or not.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
you can't separate the 'mandate' from the 'penalty.' if i choose not to have medical insurance, i pay more money to the government. if i choose not to finance a house, i pay more money to the government.

substance over form.

the main thrust of this is that the .gov clearly has the ability to use the taxing authority to try to get everyone to have health insurance. set it up this way: your tax is (whatever it happens to be) +1000, but if you have health insurance, you get a credit for 1000.

guess where the penalty is located in the US code.

of course, if it is a tax, then the supreme court has no jurisdiction yet. can't challenge a tax before it goes into effect. but if it is a tax, it's unquestionably within the power of congress.


100% disagree. The form is what matters. The form dictates the potential and the manner. The amount is nothing...it's meaningless. ONLY the theory/system matters.

As for the ACA, it has NOTHING to do with taxes whatsoever. It's not a tax, it's a penalty for non-compliance with a mandate. It's closer to a fine for a crime than a tax. I'm all for the government taxing people and in return providing socialized medicine, or possibly even a straight single payer system (depending on how implemented). THAT is within their power. The ACA is not. They CANNOT require participation in private commerce, and SHOULDN'T be empowering corporatism (as that's the definition of economic fascism). Especially when there's not going to be any direct benefit to consumers in the end (for the most part).
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
You have to admit PoW that while technically different it's quite similar. It's a government induced market distortion designed to funnel money to certain industries, and can't be ignored by those who are in a position to choose to take advantage of it or not.

I don't think it is. Honestly, I'm not being stubborn or obtuse, I just see it COMPLETELY differently in everything except having an eventual financial impact on some people, which is the part that matters least about the whole thing (to me).

I agree it's government getting involved in markets (kind of), though I disagree that it can't be ignored in impact by most.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Death panels, amirite?

Democrats are ridiculous.

WTF are you talking about? Don't you realize that we already have death panels right now under Republicare?

Private insurance companies have employees whose job is to find ways to rescind customers' insurance policies when they get sick. Many of these employees even receive commissions for it.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
When we set aside the lunacy of your either/or we can move forward implementing proper health care reform that doesn't destroy the entire nation and its foundations in the process.

Destroy the entire nation? My god, you are one hell of a drama queen, arent you?