Obamacare Lawsuit to be heard in my hometown this week

[Castout]

Personally I see nothing wrong with Obama policies except when he tries to broker a Middle east peace deal between Israel and Palestine.

Now intention is one thing but the stupidity to carry them without proper timing and condition is another.

I see this as a sign that Obama may be trapped in the expectation presented mostly from the Muslim world that he would be the one to finally succeed in securing Israel-Palestinian peace deal.

I sense a desperation here and a lost of touch with reality.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

The BS lawsuit will not work. If they smacked down the requirement to have health insurance the same ruling will be used to tie up the courts from people who drive without car insurance.

Apples and oranges.

First off the Federal government doesn't mandate having car insurance. That is done by the states and probably still not all of them. Rhode Island only went mandatory a few years ago for example.

Second, where it is mandated the legal minimum is always only liability. ie it only covers damage to other drivers if you are at fault. Health insurance has nothing to do with liability or damage to other people.

Third, one is only required to have car insurance if one plans to drive their car on public roads. As long as you do all your driving on private property you don't even need a drivers license (something also not mandated by the Feds).

You can't really compare the two.

[Zachstar]

It matters not if its fed or state its a gov forcing you to buy insurance period.

[August]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

It matters not if its fed or state its a gov forcing you to buy insurance period.

You'd like it to be that simple but it's not. Purpose, implementation and authority are all different. Apples and oranges.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Honest question: do you really think such a system would work? If so, please explain where you come up with the resources to make it work.

I've been pretty clear on my opinion on this - I'm not opposed to a FORM (key word) of universal healthcare - but one must be developed that doesn't reduce the quality of care nor tax the system beyond it's limits.

Well one idea would be to get the 50% of illegal immigrents who don't pay taxes to pay them. (Something like you pay taxes for five years you get on the fast track to citizenship). The half that payed taxes last year shelled out $7 billion in Social Security alone (just a guess from my pay stub but it would work out to about $3 billion in medicaid and federal taxes).

Other than that (its late and I don't feel like researching more) I would look to other nations with such a system: namely Japan and Sweden.

[Aramike]

Providing for the general welfare includes healthcare. And then Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18).

...except they are not providing anything for the general welfare; rather they are requiring private citizens provide healthcare for themselves to be purchased from a private entity (which is why I stated that single payer would have been more Constitutional).

PS: though I agree that this law, as enacted, is crappy. But it opens the door to better ones such as universal single payer. Hopefully. :-\

As I asked TLAM, how would you propose creating a single-payer system in THIS nation that would work?

[antikristuseke]

Personally I favor a single payer system, but I concider the United states to be too large to run a single payer system efficently, a better option would be for the fed to set a minimal standard of healthcare states must provide and leave it up to the states how set the tax to provide that healthcare coverage. Though this sounds a lot easyer than it would actually be.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Personally I favor a single payer system, but I concider the United states to be too large to run a single payer system efficently, a better option would be for the fed to set a minimal standard of healthcare states must provide and leave it up to the states how set the tax to provide that healthcare coverage. Though this sounds a lot easyer than it would actually be.

However a bigger nation wide system has advantages. Companies that produce medical goods (from band aids to X Ray machines) would have to deal with them. Meaning they have a huge incentive to market their products at the best quality and lowest price otherwise they would have nowhere else to sell.

[antikristuseke]

There are benefits and drawback to both. It is about striking the best balance and to be completely honest, I don't really know which would be better, but both seem better than the system that stands now, if properly implemented.
The main problem I see is the politization of the issue and witting it down to soundbites instead of talking about the actual issues.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

The main problem I see is the politization of the issue and witting it down to soundbites instead of talking about the actual issues.

That's every issue in American politics! Your average American voter is so dumb and has such a short attention span that if your political message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you've lost the debate.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Your average American voter is so dumb and has such a short attention span that if your political message doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, you've lost the debate.

This is what folks mean when they say the Democrats are elitist. Maybe it's just the Independent in me but i'll never vote for a party that says i'm too dumb to be their boss.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

This is what folks mean when they say the Democrats are elitist. Maybe it's just the Independent in me but i'll never vote for a party that says i'm too dumb to be their boss.

First off - not a Democrat.

I think you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You know darn well that the American electorate is stunningly ill-informed on all sorts of issues and facts - ranging from basic procedures and civics to recent events.

In 1996 voters were asked whether the deficit had gone up or down under Bill Clinton. It had, in fact, plunged — but a plurality of voters, and a majority of Republicans, said that it had risen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/op...n.html?_r=1&hp

“Whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.” - the famous liberal elitist Jefferson.

only one in four Americans could name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances), but more than half could name at least two members of the Simpsons cartoon family.

...

Another poll a few years ago found only one in five Americans knew Congress has 100 senators and only two in five could name all three branches of government.

http://www.phillytrib.com/tribune/co...mb-ocracy.html

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You know darn well that the American electorate is stunningly ill-informed on all sorts of issues and facts - ranging from basic procedures and civics to recent events.

Like I said, elitist, or racist, or possibly both. It's a common dem mantra that ought to serve them really well come November.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Like I said, elitist, or racist, or possibly both.

Uh, no.

[Sailor Steve]

Mookie, I'll say the same thing to you that I say to anyone I hear criticizing Utah drivers: Never forget, you are one.

You are the American electorate. Some of them are, as you say, not so well informed. I actually place myself in that category. Others are very well informed indeed. But whether you are one or the other is unknowable at best. Inform yourself all you like, you have to face the possibility that you could still be wrong. And others need to face the idea that you could be right.

And it's true that the great majority don't know and don't care, but you do indeed make it sound like you know what's best for them, and they should listen only to you. As I've tried to remind others, it's how you say it that comes across.