Because I would just move to another state if I didn't want to buy broccoli.

Amendment 10; The Constitution of the United States
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I know you guys just hate that the pesky constitution gets in the way. You know, the thing that the President solemnly swears to preseve, protect and defend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Yff-_9MZs

Not true. You guys haven't had the misfortune of spending time in rest homes and nursing facilities. Women seem to thrive in the environment. Men don't do as well. Women survive more months on end-of-life care than men. It is also really bad if you are over 200 lbs. Those little tiny caretakers have difficulties assisting large people.

This is a different argument. And one that has absolutely nothing to do with your comment that I quoted.

Of course it doesn't, it just means that "OMG you just won th3 internetz" cheerleading comments are stupid.

Please restate the question and I will answer it to the best of my ability. I re-read the exchange and I feel I answered it.

You made a silly slippery slope argument about government forcing people to buy stuff for their own good and how it could lead to other ridiculous things. I pointed out that there are already lots of things that you're required to buy by governments and somehow we're still free of forced broccoli consumption.

As for krmonts point, I don't see much difference between forcing someone to buy item B (smoke detectors) after buying item A (a house) or just forcing you to buy an item. In both cases your money has to be spent on a product you might not have purchased otherwise.

Yes, and I stated that the constitutional issue at question here is whether the federal government can force someone to buy at something at the threat of fine. I believe it is unconstitutional. This is the heart of the issue and the Supreme Court will rule on it on June.

States, on the other hand, can force its residents to purchase something or face a fine. This is why, constitutionally, I have no issue with Romneycare, manditory liability coverage, etc.

The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to States. Only the enumerated powers are given to the federal government. And requiring health care coverage, in my opinion, is not a federal area.

Now if the Congress passed a flat 5% income tax for UHC, then yes, it would be constitutional, as long as I had the ability to privately pay for my care and opt out of the government hospitals (even though I still would be required to pay the tax).

What % of the population do you think could actually explain what Obamacare does?
I'd imagine its less than 10

When you buy a house, you know what things you have to do. When you buy a car, you know the requirements. This bill is trying to change the rules of being alive.

How about 0%. They haven't finished writing the legislation. We just know many people will be forced to purchase health insurance and healthcare as a percent of GDP will be greater.

Do you actually think they would say insurance is the only thing congress can make people buy? They would say, in this case, to regulate commerce, this law is valid. That's not activism at all.

That doesn't make the effect significant.

Why would these things be unconstitutional? Just because they are obviously bad ideas? The constitution doesn't protect against bad ideas, as evidenced by the fact that it took nearly a hundred years before they modified it to not treat human beings as property. The constitution allows the federal government to do all kinds of things to people--like killing them and forcing them to go to war and taking away their property. Why is there some weird idea that it can't force you to buy something? Why is that the straw that breaks the camel's back?

I know the answer is because now the constitution says the government can do something you don't like, so no real need to answer.

So is this entire thread dedicated to debating the individual mandate?

No one wants to discuss the benefits/costs of pre-existing conditions or lifetime caps or extending the time dependents can stay on their parent's insurance?

None of those things really matter when there is the individual mandate. Those things are great, but the cost is too high.

Yes. It is clearly unconstitutional.

If we had UHC I wouldn't be in this thread debating you.

Health care.

well, doesn't it just really drive home that old maxim, "the only guarantees in life are death and taxes"?

I don't object to this type of UHC. I don't like the U.S. version of healthcare.

Is the #'s the Senator quotes here correct?

Specifically, the employer having the option of continuing to cover their employees at a cost of 15k for a family plan as compared to eating a 2k fee and their employees being eligible for a 10k subsidy if they have a household income of 64k+?

Wow. I never realized this pushed us that much closer to single payer. So many people are going to end up on it, that they'll have to widen the scope - wouldn't be fair otherwise. Seems IMO that insurance companies are raising rates at this point just trying to get what they can before the inevitable.

This is one of the biggest fails of the whole law, imo. If i understand it correctly, the penalties for not insuring employees are so much less than it would cost to comply with the law as to render the law meaningless.

ETA: And when did Jerry Sandusky become a US Senator??

Well to me the key factor is that those people will still be able to get insurance w/o being denied for pre-existing conditions and not have to worry about recission. If employers don't want to participate and their tax $$ go to support the program I'm fine with that.

Will they? Or is there a sizable demo of families who may have a single income earner of under 64k who get ridiculously squeezed if their employer drops insurance?

Seems most of those who would be at risk of their employer dropping coverage would be those whose skills don't require much demand, hence their employers not feeling the need to sweeten the pot beyond $10-18 an hour.

Is this not squeezing the same lower middle class that the Dem's profess to be looking out for?

If only there were a state that implemented the exact same structure with a less severe employer penalty, then we might have some evidence that would show how prevalent this scenario might be.


Oh gee look what I found...



But please, keep the youtubes of idiots coming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ates_by_income

#6 w/ a household median income of $64k+

#4 and 5 are Hawaii and Alaska which have unique reasons for their placement in the hierarchy

Nothing says lower middle class like Massachusetts

Lolwut?

The median income of households has absolutely zero to do with the fact that employers are not pushing their employees into the individual insurance market, even with fines that are much less severe than those in the ACA, even though that's EXACTLY what opponents of the Mass law predicted before it was passed.

Of course high paid employees aren't going to be put on da welfare, they're employees in demand and their employers have to more actively attract/retain them.

What about a $20 framer in Wichita who used to have health insurance and his wife could stay at home? This law provides a disincentive for the majority of employers to provide insurance, unless you could prove me wrong with the specifics of the law - not a case study in a state which isn't analogous to the majority of the US