100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Questions About the Affordable Care Act | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sun 04/01/12 08:13 PM
|
|
2) According to the constitution? Yes. (You do realize that Obamacare is unconstitutional, right?) While it would be perfectly constitutional for the state to place this requirement upon people, I would probably move to a state that didn't. I was just reading another site's discussion about this, and they pointed out that states are bound by the Constitution, too, so the same limitation would be placed on them as on the federal government. I did have a "duh" moment about that, as I really knew that but it hadn't come through to my consciousness yet. They are wrong. The Constitution grants certain powers to Congress and all other powers to the states or the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auto insurance is for the good of the public as far as accidents go. Health insurance is a personal choice. That is a joke right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auto insurance is for the good of the public as far as accidents go. Health insurance is a personal choice. You're saying that health insurance is not for the good of the public?? Health insurance (as it is presented by 'obamacare' is for the good of the few at the expense of the General Public. (i.e it helps 50 million by forcing 300 million to pay for them). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We need to fix the system someway. The people who are unable to get coverage because of a pre existing condition is absurd. Those people need the coverage and are not getting it. i agree, but telling everyone they "have" to have it is just wrong... But everyone EVERYONE will have to have some kind of healthcare in their life even if it is just the morgue services so they should have to be prepared for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AdventureBegins
on
Sun 04/01/12 08:52 PM
|
|
Auto insurance is for the good of the public as far as accidents go. Health insurance is a personal choice. You're saying that health insurance is not for the good of the public?? I would say, forcing people to purchase it is unconstitutional. It's either buy it or owe a fine. If, you can't afford the fine, you go to jail. They will need to build more jails. I think I heard, Haliburton just won a big bid to build a lot of new jails. Isn't it true that the Act provides some sort of loophole for people who can't afford the premium? I believe that was an important part of getting it passed in the first place. Why is this mandate unconstitutional, when it would be constitutional to tax us for health care and then provide it free? Why is it not covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause? First because Health insurance is not currently allowed to be sold 'interstate'... Second because forcing someone to become a part of 'commerce' by penalty of fine is a violation of individual rights. That which is reserved by the states is a state right if not reserved by the people. individual rights are reserved by the people (per the Constitution). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I laugh when people try to compare auto insurance to health care. Its not even close. As some people mentioned before you only need auto insurance if you have a car and you can choose not to have one.
They forgot one important thing though. Auto insurance really isn't to protect you. Auto insurance's main purpose is to protect others from you. The only thing you legally have to have with car insurance is liability (assuming your car is paid off). That is so you can pay for the other people if the accident is your fault. So if we want to compare those two then the only thing the government could do would be require me to get medical insurance to cover people if I cause them to need medical attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bravalady
on
Sun 04/01/12 09:55 PM
|
|
Okay, I will drop the comparison to auto insurance because I think the points that have been made are valid, or at least they seem valid to me. I'm no constitutional lawyer. I'm just trying to use common sense. But I honestly had not seen any discussion of this before.
|
|
|
|
|
