Healthcare Law is in the hands of the Supreme Court

[Cataclysm]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

True, but people buy insurance to be able to drive, not live.

That said, I'd love to see the law scrapped and replaced with single payer. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Single payer NOW!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOzC6905Y7w" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOzC6905Y7w</a>

[DasFuchs]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

I think it's bullshit you are forced to have to have insurance on your car (same with having to wear seatbelts). Of course this goes hand in hand with public healthcare being a reality.

But no, I don't think a person should be forced to have health insurance is comparable to car insurance. Car insurance has the ability to help you and the person you injure/wreck. Health insurance just effects and covers you. If the government is so conserned you should be insured, they should provide it rather than "lol, we're gonna rape your paychecks of taxes and still force you to buy shit!"

[Witchyjoshy]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

I think it's bullshit you are forced to have to have insurance on your car (same with having to wear seatbelts). Of course this goes hand in hand with public healthcare being a reality.

1. Car insurance isn't just for your benefit, it's for others as well.

2. Not wearing seatbelts can lead to people other than yourself being killed should you be forcibly evacuated through your windshield.  Further, it will inflict severe psychological trauma on any witnesses who happen to see your shredded, mangled body that was forcibly evacuated through your windshield.

So, no, not bullshit at all.

[nickiknack]

I know this is out of the norm here, but I'll rather have a universal multi-payer sysytem similiar to Germany than a single payer, given that one is given more choices, and "freedom" loving teabaggers can keep being raped by their insurance companies if they choose to to.

[DasFuchs]

"1. Car insurance isn't just for your benefit, it's for others as well."

I believe I said that

"2. Not wearing seatbelts can lead to people other than yourself being killed should you be forcibly evacuated through your windshield."

If you hit someone at that speed to do that, chances are neither of you are gonna survive anyways

" Further, it will inflict severe psychological trauma on any witnesses who happen to see your shredded, mangled body that was forcibly evacuated through your windshield."

Might as well demand everyone wrap up in bubble wrap too because any accident will do that regardless if your body goes through a windshield or your head explodes on the steering column

[Witchyjoshy]

If you hit someone at that speed to do that, chances are neither of you are gonna survive anyways

I'm talking about pedestrians.

Might as well demand everyone wrap up in bubble wrap too because any accident will do that regardless if your body goes through a windshield or your head explodes on the steering column

Why is it that showing even the simplest respect for other people's psyche or emotional well-being is termed as coddling them or sheltering them?  I do not understand this.  When did showing concern for people become a BAD thing?

The fact of the matter is, someone's head explodes inside their car, it stays inside their car.  Someone's body goes launching out their window, it's going to be visible for EVERYONE to see.

[MadCatTLX]

I know this is out of the norm here, but I'll rather have a universal multi-payer sysytem similiar to Germany than a single payer, given that one is given more choices, and "freedom" loving teabaggers can keep being raped by their insurance companies if they choose to to.

NAZI! /teabagger (I hate people that do this)

"1. Car insurance isn't just for your benefit, it's for others as well."

I believe I said that

"2. Not wearing seatbelts can lead to people other than yourself being killed should you be forcibly evacuated through your windshield."

If you hit someone at that speed to do that, chances are neither of you are gonna survive anyways

" Further, it will inflict severe psychological trauma on any witnesses who happen to see your shredded, mangled body that was forcibly evacuated through your windshield."

Might as well demand everyone wrap up in bubble wrap too because any accident will do that regardless if your body goes through a windshield or your head explodes on the steering column

I've heard of people surviving such crashes. I've even heard of people surviving getting thrown out the windshield, though I imagine it hurt like a motherfucker. As good as car safety features are getting you can survive worse crashes. To take to an extreme look at most race car crashes. Race cars are built to protect the driver so well they can often walk away relatively in harmed.

The case against the health care law, at least from what I heard, is built on the premise that the government can't force someone to buy a product or service. When it's worded like that it would seem to include car insurance.

[Auri-El]

It's not. Car insurance is mandated by the states, which can do pretty much whatever they want. If a state wanted to force its citizens to buy health insurance, they could and  it wouldn't unconstitutional. People who didn't like it would pretty much have to either move or start online petitions. The problem is that Congress's authority to mandate health insurance is iffy. They're using their power to regulate interstate commerce to justify it, but whether SCOTUS will buy it is debatable. The ironic thing is, Congress can, under the constitution, completely socialize health care, but it would never actually get passed like that. (We spent most of Monday's lecture talking about this in my constitutional law class, this is what my professor told us about it.)

[m52nickerson]

The Militia Act of 1792 required each able body male upon reaching 18 years of age to get a musket or flintlock and the needed appurtenances.  So there is precedent for the federal government to force people to buy items.

[DasFuchs]

"I've heard of people surviving such crashes. I've even heard of people surviving getting thrown out the windshield, though I imagine it hurt like a motherfucker. As good as car safety features are getting you can survive worse crashes. "

I realise this, hence why I said "chances are". While people can, it's not likely they will

"To take to an extreme look at most race car crashes. Race cars are built to protect the driver so well they can often walk away relatively in harmed."

Unfortunately their safety devices are not practical or best. Being turned into part of the car by being strapped into a seat specially designed to hug your body by multiple straps to the point you can't move anything but your arms and some of your legs along with the full body reinforced roll cage that forms the backbone of the car...added to the fact it's rare a driver takes a wall head on. Even the slightest lapse in strapping in can be fatal, Dale Earnhardt comes to mind.

[nickiknack]

The Militia Act of 1792 required each able body male upon reaching 18 years of age to get a musket or flintlock and the needed appurtenances.  So there is precedent for the federal government to force people to buy items.

And who wants to bet that the coservatives justices will ignore this, I'm willing to put down money...

[nickiknack]

Yeah, I don't think Scalia is going to vote in favor, looks like Scalia dropped the Tea party mantra of  "let them die".

[StallChaser]

I don't see how the court can rule that the mandate isn't covered by the commerce clause because of how ridiculously broad the current interpretation is.  If they overturn it, I think they'll have a really hard time explaining how the federal government can get away with all this other stuff under the commerce clause (federal drug laws, for example) but that somehow the health care mandate doesn't count.  At least not without making it look blatantly politically motivated, which I wouldn't put past them (like, for example, Bush v. Gore).

[kefkaownsall]

I don't see how the court can rule that the mandate isn't covered by the commerce clause because of how ridiculously broad the current interpretation is.  If they overturn it, I think they'll have a really hard time explaining how the federal government can get away with all this other stuff under the commerce clause (federal drug laws, for example) but that somehow the health care mandate doesn't count.  At least not without making it look blatantly politically motivated, which I wouldn't put past them (like, for example, Bush v. Gore).

Seeing as Scalia was baffled whn he leared he would have to read the entire law...http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/03/28/454099/scalia-says-court-cant-be-bothered-to-read-obamacare-you-really-want-us-to-go-through-these-2700-pages/

[m52nickerson]

I don't see how the court can rule that the mandate isn't covered by the commerce clause because of how ridiculously broad the current interpretation is.  If they overturn it, I think they'll have a really hard time explaining how the federal government can get away with all this other stuff under the commerce clause (federal drug laws, for example) but that somehow the health care mandate doesn't count.  At least not without making it look blatantly politically motivated, which I wouldn't put past them (like, for example, Bush v. Gore).

Easy, unlike all the other laws which fall under the commerce clause the mandate is the only one that requires people to buy something.  With the exception of the Militia Act of 1792, which can be argued to have standing under the second amendment, the federal government has never done this before.