By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 24 June 2012
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

There's huge precedent of government involvement in health care and how health insurance, despite not being tradable over state lines, is a huge interstate issue. This one's commerce clause, plain and simple, and it's judicial activism from social darwinists who think that the constitution somehow enumerates property rights that never really existed in the first place to strike this law down. Not that Roberts and that mouth-breathing warlock Scalia care, they're rich, so what matters how the peons suffer for the social darwinist cause?

Dude, we've been over this before... and as I remember... it went from you argueing that I was using a slippery slope arguement to using a slippery slope arguement as to why it wouldn't be abused.  After you never responded to Badgenome i'd just had figured you realized you were wrong and had no arguement against it.

There is no gurantee people will use healthcare services, therefore it is unconsitutional  to mandate insurance.

It's that simple.

Unlike car insurance, where car insurance is specifically tied to driving a car which is a priveledge.

Unless your arguement is... people have to pay money for the right to live.

To say this ruling is constituional is to say there is no right to life... or really, anything.

As i said, it's a clear matter of interstate importance, the health-care industry, and in order to regulate it (at least as the system exists. I'm only expending this much energy defending this half-assed measure because of what i said before, that this is the best we're likely to get for now) they *need* to make it mandatory. There is no other market where forcing people to buy more is the only way to drive prices down in the aggregate, so there's no slippery slope here, except perhaps in expanded insurance-purchasing mandates, but nothing so ludicrous as those Enemies Of The People up on the bench suggested, about being forced to buy this or that consumer good. It's a simple matter of something that needs to be done in order to facilitate an essential part of commerce.


Its not going to drive prices down. Its going to force more money into the system. Things will still cost the same, but you will be forcing others to foot the bill. Not lowering the bill. I think the only way to get costs down would be to relax the requirements to become a doctor. It takes too long and too much money to train a doctor in the US. Does Obama care change any of that? I haven't read it a long time so i am not sure if there are measures in it that would effect that but i dont believe there is.