Repeal of Obamacare

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Actually Mookie - you should read the item in question.

I did. Nice subtle jab at me, implying that I didn't, though. Don't do that. You're better than that.

The current "health care law" removes all choice when it comes to this - everyone is hit with the mandate - no matter what. Thus - you and the "blogger" are both trying to compare apples to oranges. Nice try - but its a different thing entirely.

I think you're missing the point. The government has been in the health insurance business going back to the 1790s.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think you're missing the point. The government has been in the health insurance business going back to the 1790s.

Yes but not until now have we been forced to buy their product and all under the threat of fines and imprisonment if we dont do business with them.

I have been without insurance for the past 3 years.

I have been to the doctor twice in that span of time, and i paid in cash on both.

total cost has been about $165.00

a hell of a lot less than than the 3-5 thousand dollars i would have had to pay to any insurance company in that same 3 year period.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I did. Nice subtle jab at me, implying that I didn't, though. Don't do that. You're better than that.

Mookie,

It wasn't meant as a jab at you. Your a pretty sharp cookie. You quoted the blog that stated "The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance." The title of the blog being about "socialized" medicine and its historical support - the blog itself argues that the government has history on its side.

The blog is incorrect, and I figured that in reading the relevant document you would have noticed that. The government had jurisdiction to require such payment (tax) because those involved specifically were defined as participating in international trade and the payment requirement applied to them only in this case. International trade actions are things the government has the right to regulate under the constitution and the subsequent "commerce clause". In fact - the blog does not even attempt to address that domestic shipping is excused - why is that do you think? Could it be that they have a point they want to make - regardless of its accuracy?

Either way, the limitation stands - domestic commerce could not be touched by this - so to claim that it is "socialized medicine" or an insurance mandate is plain wrong. To say that it gives the government precedence to mandate we all buy insurance is ludicrous. In fact, to further argue the point, note that it did not stipulate american seamen. ANY seaman - regardless of nationality - working on a boat that berthed in a us port - paid this - unless the ships master or owner paid it FOR them. Given the time frame, your talking English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc - paying for the care of sailors. Again - this speaks to regulation of (and on) international trade - not a socialized medicine mandate upon all US citizenry or even all US seamen.....

Where in the document as passed does it even have the word "insurance" (or equivelant term) at all? It doesn't. So to say it "mandated" sailors purchase insurance is pure bullocks.

No insult was intended. So lets debate the matter at hand, instead of getting side tracked. The issue is the blog is full of crap - there was no insurance mandate in 1798. Nor did it mandate EVERYONE had to pay it. If you want to say it does in fact contain such mandates, by all means make your argument.