In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 665
Online now 697 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
There are some good arguments on both sides of this issue, if it is to be decided on the law, and not on politics and ideology.
My concern goes beyond the mandate and centers on the incredible power and descretion allowed the Secretary of Human Services to create regulations (in effect laws) based on his/her own conclusions. This was an abdication of the Congress' role, though certainly not an unheard off scheme. Still with everyone's lives and health at stake, who wants a single person with that power.
This post was edited by tagterp 2 years ago
The free rider argument is a decent one for the reasons you identified, although I would point out two things. First, the "taxpayer" doesn't foot the bill for uncompensated care. Hospitals shift this cost onto the patients that do pay (mostly through insurance companies), so while "the rest of us" do pick up the bill, it's through our insurance premiums not our taxes. Second, the free rider "problem" is not one that just exists in nature, it is created by government. The law requires hospitals to provide emergency care to patients regardless of ability to pay. Now, I understand that doing away with this law is unpalatable to most, but the fact remains that the free rider problem is one created by government.
The bigger issue, I think, for a lot of people is not whether the mandate is a good or bad idea as a matter of policy, but the scope of Congress's power. If they can force you to buy health insurance just because you exist, is there anything they can't do? Granting Congress that kind of power worries a lot of people, even if they think there's nothing particularly troubling with this particular example.
I can change the thread title, I guess, but IMO the current title is still accurate. What should I change it to?
I think he quoted something I had said months ago.
ok--but if I'm genetically predisposed to a malady, that's not my choice and when it develops I'll need care. No insurance = public burden.
Some might say that the government forcing the public to buy something is also a burden ...
If I never eat vegetables and never work out I'll probably be a burden too, can the government force me to buy salad when I go out to eat and to buy a gym membership?
I think that is really what could be a sticking point for Kennedy, is if the Solicitor has a hard time identifying a limiting principle. In effect there has been very little limit on Congressional power under the commerce clause since the New Deal. But I don't think Kennedy will go along with making it entirely a dead letter and (effectively, if not explicitly) overturning precedent like Lopez.
Eat your veggies you will feel better and you won't destroy the health care system.
Can't wait for the government to mandate this. /snark
But seriously, one of the things I'm most concerned about is what justifications the government will come up with to exert more and more control over our lives, all in the name of keeping healthcare costs down. Don't think it won't happen...this is one of the slippery slopes government always falls into when it gets too big for its britches, much like speed cameras, soda taxes, raiding specific funds like transportation, gas station cleanup (Connecticut), etc.
100% chance 10_TC2 is TerpCity.
I'm new here, what does the 10_ mean.
Means you are 10[0%]TC2.
I'm just not all that up to date with all this newfangled techno-wizardry stuff.
Assuming that Obamacare is approved by SCOTUS, and Sebelius enforces it full speed ahead, including forcing people of religious conviction to fund abortion, how far away then, is this?
"Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued..."
People would do well to keep in mind the idiom, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." It always sounds good at the beginning when government promises to pay for things for you. But then your personal decisions create a budgetary impact for the government, so in the name of controlling "costs" they begin controlling YOU. Suddenly people discover that that free money wasn't so free after all, but had lots and lots of strings attached. If I'm paying for your healthcare, why shouldn't I be able to tell you what you can eat, how much you have to exercise, what treatment you can get, what treatment you MUST get?
The White House apparently thinks ObamaCare needs more money—to the tune of more than $100 billion. Over at Forbes, Avik Roy notices that the latest administration budget proposal calls for an additional $111 billion to be spent on the insurance subsidies for the law’s health insurance
Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) schools HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the costs and broken promises of ObamaCare.
JOHNSON: So now we, we’ve reduced that $143 billion by $86 billion – by not getting revenue from the CLASS Act – and now $111 billion because we’ve increased the mandatory costs of the exchanges, correct?
SEBELIUS: I’m assuming the numbers are correct. I’m sorry I don’t have them.
JOHNSON: So, when you add those together, that’s $197 billion added to the first 10-year cost estimate of Obamacare, so now we are instead of saving $143 billion, we are adding $54 billion to our deficit, correct?
SEBELIUS: Sir I –
JOHNSON: We’ll submit that to the record. But, that’s basically true. So instead of saving $143 billion, by this administration’s own figures and budget, we’re now adding $54 billion to our deficit in the first 10 years. To me, that would be the first broken promise.
Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius appeared flummoxed by questioning from Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) at a hearing on the new health care law Wednesday.
For what it's worth, all these issues about costs don't really matter from a legal perspective as far as I'm concerned. If it's legal, it's legal (whether it saves $100 billion or costs $1 trillion). And if it's illegal, it's illegal, even if it somehow saves us some money.
There are policy reasons to oppose Obamacare. And there are legal reasons to oppose Obamacare. I think the opponents of Obamacare have to be careful not to conflate those issues.
I agree, opponents shouldn't conflate the issues. They should be able to make them both at the same time, though.
Yeah I just kind of wanted to bitch about obamacare and posted it here instead of the campaign thread.
I don't think anyone was conflating costs with legality...just consolidating the discussion of both into one thread.
I'm not enough of a nerd to be into this, but some of you might dig it:
Obamacare in Briefs: The Amicus
In a historic series of four oral argument sessions spanning six hours over three days (March 26-28), the Supreme Court will consider two challenges to the constitutionality of the ObamaCare law. Nancy Pelosi famously mocked as unserious a reporter who asked what constitutional authority Congress possessed to enact the mandate that all Americans secure inflated health insurance policies. But the serious questions continued in court. Last August, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the individual mandate in a legal challenge brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), but rejected the additional challenge brought by the states that the Medicaid spending conditions were unconstitutionally coercive. The Supreme Court agreed to review both of those rulings as well as two thorny side issues. A landmark decision is expected this June that will not only change the nature of the health care policy debate, but also will likely reverberate through the constitutional casebooks for decades.
T-4 days. Let's gooo. I can't decide whether to nerd up this thread even further or not.
No matter how it is decided, I think we can all agree that the separate opinions authored by Scalia and Thomas will make for good reading.
You legal nerds would appreciate this, from the other thread:
Interesting that a moot court held by the Constitution Center found 8-1 to uphold the ACA mandate. On the panel were legal professors and current or former US Circuit Court justices, including 4 Republicans who were Bush I or II appointees (and a couple non-justices who may be Pubs as well, didn't Wiki them all). A look at how this might play out.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports