So, if you believe this scheme is unconstitutional or flawed, you are a conservative. On the other hand, if you are one of the four who will support it irregardless of its constitutionality, you are—what? Liberals–might be the answer. Ok, so this is Reuters we’re dealing with, but still–this is supposed to be an insurance publication.
Agreed. It’s also a constitutional issue. The system is a mess right now. Like it or hate it, at least we are all dealing with it, including the those that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this issue.
I want health care insurance and do not want to pay for my neighbors medical care. I wish we could curtail the medical over billing that makes me and my insurance company pay for my neighbors not buying the insurance policy with over inflated medical billing to pay for the uninsured. If it is found to be uncontstitutional then so be it. I hope the Supreme Court will not be found to be playing politics in their ruling and simply stick with the law and constitution. I will abide by the ruling and not consider it unfavorable to President Obama nor Gov Romney. At least they did something! In today’s political talking points it is a surprise anything gets done. I love my country.
Ditto, bro. Couldn’t agree more. But, we are already paying for the uninsured’s in the ERs without medical insurance. Check out an inter-city ER and day or night of the week. It’s a problem. So it the medical billing, as you mentioned. Me and the wife and kiddies have been to the ER for one reason or another in the last couple of years. The charges are outrageous! $50 for an ace bandage??
Why is the supreme court talking politics? If the conservatives stick together it could be brought down, but if any go with the liberals, then it will stand. Why does conservative or liberal have anything to do with this? I thought this was our Justice department that will dig deep into our constitution and our law and make a decision based on that. Not base a decision on what they feel is right. If they want to do that, then run for political office. This is bullcrap.
Conservative and liberal are usually used as synonyms for Republican and Democrat, but they are different things. Conservative/liberal describes underlying philosophies; Republican and Democrat are just political affiliations and have no place in deciding law.
But you can’t separate philosophy from the law. The kinds of questions the Supreme Court decides are not cut and dry. Congress is granted certain powers which are stated in the Constitution in vague terms. Look at the General Welfare clause. A “liberal” interpretation could be used to justify almost any government tax and spending program, whereas a “conservative” interpretation would limit its application to items specifically granted to the Federal gummint. The words are slippery; their meaning and intent must be interpreted by someone.
Anybody that thinks this is an insurance issue is a liberal activist or just plain daffy!
This is about ‘Rule of Law’. If the court doesn’t not strike the mandate, they will be activists and it will be unconstitutional. They are in effect ‘nullifying’ over 200 years of law and saying the government is all powerful and can do anything it wants, without limit. Is this what anyone wants? It will also be the signal for all the crazies and loons to come out of the woodwork. Because they will be justified, as we will no longer be a government ‘Of The People’ under ‘Rule of Law’.
What we need is a true healthcare reform law, with billing, coverage, and rewards for participation, without a mandate.
You are right Architect. True Healthcare Reform would not be a 2,700 page Progressive Dream. This bill transforms this country from a free market system to a total control over our lives system which is exactly what the Progressives have wanted for 100 years.
So, if you believe this scheme is unconstitutional or flawed, you are a conservative. On the other hand, if you are one of the four who will support it irregardless of its constitutionality, you are—what? Liberals–might be the answer. Ok, so this is Reuters we’re dealing with, but still–this is supposed to be an insurance publication.
If you do not understand that this is an insurance issue, then you don’t understand the issue at all.
Agreed. It’s also a constitutional issue. The system is a mess right now. Like it or hate it, at least we are all dealing with it, including the those that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this issue.
I want health care insurance and do not want to pay for my neighbors medical care. I wish we could curtail the medical over billing that makes me and my insurance company pay for my neighbors not buying the insurance policy with over inflated medical billing to pay for the uninsured. If it is found to be uncontstitutional then so be it. I hope the Supreme Court will not be found to be playing politics in their ruling and simply stick with the law and constitution. I will abide by the ruling and not consider it unfavorable to President Obama nor Gov Romney. At least they did something! In today’s political talking points it is a surprise anything gets done. I love my country.
Ditto, bro. Couldn’t agree more. But, we are already paying for the uninsured’s in the ERs without medical insurance. Check out an inter-city ER and day or night of the week. It’s a problem. So it the medical billing, as you mentioned. Me and the wife and kiddies have been to the ER for one reason or another in the last couple of years. The charges are outrageous! $50 for an ace bandage??
Halleluja Brother!!!! You are preachin’ to the choir!!!
Why is the supreme court talking politics? If the conservatives stick together it could be brought down, but if any go with the liberals, then it will stand. Why does conservative or liberal have anything to do with this? I thought this was our Justice department that will dig deep into our constitution and our law and make a decision based on that. Not base a decision on what they feel is right. If they want to do that, then run for political office. This is bullcrap.
Conservative and liberal are usually used as synonyms for Republican and Democrat, but they are different things. Conservative/liberal describes underlying philosophies; Republican and Democrat are just political affiliations and have no place in deciding law.
But you can’t separate philosophy from the law. The kinds of questions the Supreme Court decides are not cut and dry. Congress is granted certain powers which are stated in the Constitution in vague terms. Look at the General Welfare clause. A “liberal” interpretation could be used to justify almost any government tax and spending program, whereas a “conservative” interpretation would limit its application to items specifically granted to the Federal gummint. The words are slippery; their meaning and intent must be interpreted by someone.
Anybody that thinks this is an insurance issue is a liberal activist or just plain daffy!
This is about ‘Rule of Law’. If the court doesn’t not strike the mandate, they will be activists and it will be unconstitutional. They are in effect ‘nullifying’ over 200 years of law and saying the government is all powerful and can do anything it wants, without limit. Is this what anyone wants? It will also be the signal for all the crazies and loons to come out of the woodwork. Because they will be justified, as we will no longer be a government ‘Of The People’ under ‘Rule of Law’.
What we need is a true healthcare reform law, with billing, coverage, and rewards for participation, without a mandate.
You are right Architect. True Healthcare Reform would not be a 2,700 page Progressive Dream. This bill transforms this country from a free market system to a total control over our lives system which is exactly what the Progressives have wanted for 100 years.