Off Topic Board

Just when you think political discussions couldn't get any wackier, someone comes out and sets a new standard for wacky.

David Dow says that this law is "clearly constitutional." If that were the case, he and Obama would have nothing to worry about, and it wouldn't be necessary to preemptively attack the Court and it's presumed ruling. As a matter of fact, if it were "clearly consitutional" it should have never gotten to the Supreme Court.

I just wrote him an email asking him why people who didn't want to participate in health insurance were now going to be forced to do it. Not a good idea to bash the court while they are still considering this.

He and others seem to be sure how the Court will rule. I think it could go either way on this.

True. I believe that the mandate is constitutional, but we are going to have to wait to hear what the SCOTUS decides.

I asked that question to Metro because it didn't appear that he understood why a mandate was put in place.

If they think it is unconstitutional, it is their constitutional duty to strike it down. I doubt that any of the nine believe that only those who can afford it should get health care. Few if any in this country go without it now. The Court has to deal with the law as presented to them.

Haha! I will go ahead and admit it. You've completely lost me.

It's okay. It happens to the best of us. :-)

This is actually where socialized medicine shines - bumps, cuts, colds, bruises, preventative care, initial diagnosis.

Where it really falls apart is the standard of care when something is REALLY wrong. Then it's wait lists and quotas and a ton of economic disincentive that ultimately leads to a dramatic decrease in the quality of catastrophic care and, eventually, a decrease in innovation. I mean, why should any biotech firm take huge risks with investor capital if there is insufficient ability to generate a return?

Some form of standardized basic care in place of some of the existing programs might be a better use of funds - but I can't imagine any scenario where the libs don't just push it back to one health care system, and the corresponding problems that come with it (particularly in a non-homogenous society).

There is no question healthcare needs to be reformed. The reality of this situation is in several parts....One: Obama's brand of healthcare is unacceptable as it is designed. It has not reformed healthcare but expanded it. Secondly, the cost of it is so unreasonable that it is not acceptable. Thirdly, we do not know who these people who are the target of this benefit. Fourthly, the government can't manage Medicare adequately, how is it assumed that they will manage healthcare of all America reasonably? Lastly, and most importantly, how can the government legally force all Americans to buy this healthcare against their will? I guess only the libs understand this. That is why they depend Uncle Sugar so much to manage their lives.

Why does it matter whose idea it was? A turd is a turd regardless of whose ass it comes from

Read up on the those who have pushed for a mandate over the last 20 years. Let me know who pushed the idea and then please let me know when those supporting the mandate changed their position on the mandate.

If you do that, I think we might be able to have a pretty good discussion on the topic.

Bill just because they voted against it does not mean the ACA is not filled with many Republican recommendations. The Mandate was certainly one of them.