Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow

Even though that wasn't in regards to me, I agree. I'm an independent because I have views on both sides and I don't like being pigeon holed into certain views . However, if I were to vote, I would likely vote Dem.

I would argue that the average person who isn't registered to vote probably doesn't know the primary differences in REPs and DEMs.

What Joph said.


Wow, a hypothetical situation that will never, ever exist in reality! What a valuable insight!

Grow up.


Actually, there most definitely will be people out there who are uninsured. This law does nothing to achieve "universal coverage", although this is realistically a pipe dream without a single payer system.

For the record, I think that universal health insurance is an admirable and worthwhile social goal. I simply disagree with how Democrats chose to go about it (and how Roberts essentially re-wrote the bill in question to uphold it).

Perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part, but as we both say, it doesn't achieve "universal" coverage. I realize that the law didn't intend to do that (again, since this isn't possible without a single-payer system), I merely wanted to address Alma's flippant remark as quoted in my post.


Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, we'll never know if it was severable from the rest of the law or not. However, it is the linchpin of the entire law, and without it there's no way Congressional Democrats would have been able to present the bill as deficit-neutral (or get it passed).

As I may have inferred previously but not explicitly stated, I don't have any particular grievance with the other parts of the bill. It just so happens that the other parts are dependent upon the individual mandate, which I don't think should be constitutional under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, or Taxing powers of Congress.

Clearly cubic zirconia.

It might not be as interesting as you think. I gather that CNN falsely reported that the law had been overturned for 7 minutes or so early on. I suspect many people saw that report, then moved on to other things.

Of course, depending on when the polling was done, that could say something about the level to which said people are following the story, if they never happen to run into the correct version of it later on.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 12:39am by Eske

I have something that might interest you.



Oh, there's also that "cloud insurance".. You never know, those clouds can get testy...



You sure do have an interesting hobby, just paying for insurance for the heck of it. Hey, I have some Jupiter insurance for you also.. PM for details. I'll give you a good deal.

Misspelling an insurance company's name that I don't use somehow changes their insurance policy?
Well, if I were ridiculing someone on spelling, then you would have a point; however, the word "smart" was in reference to the knowledge of certain insurance practices. Pointing out an unneeded space and capitalization makes you look really foolish. But, hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. (is that right lolgaxe?)

Anyone arguing with someone who's entire goal is to be contradictory should probably think again, too.

As other noted, you don't HAVE to drive a car. However, the early US government at least once passed a measure requiring citizens to purchase privately produced products.

Reading the law in question, essentially it was like being conscripted to join the National Guard except you would also be mandated to provide your own M4 rifle, ammunition, combat knife and backpack to have when you showed up rather than the military providing them.

Assuming you're already an able-bodied white male citizen in that age bracket, there was really no escaping this mandated purchase from private companies short of cutting your arm off. One can argue differences of scale against the ACA, but not differences of principle -- mandating a purchase of private goods based on criteria you can't help or change.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 9:29am by Jophiel

Tell that to the screaming GOP legions wearing tri-corner hats and waving "Don't Tread on Me" posters as their primary form of political discourse

And I would say it's compelling in determining the intent of the early government. Obviously it was not 100% against mandated purchases from private companies. Arguing now that it's a bad idea is fine but it should be done with the agreement that it wasn't a problem with many of the men who formed this nation.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 10:45am by Jophiel

And what constitutional power do you think they thought it fell under?

Edit: Referring to the musket and bayonet thing, not insurance.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 11:17am by BrownDuck

I never said I thought it was a legitimate exercise of Congressional power, only that the comparison didn't lend any credibility to the individual mandate. Remember, I'm arguing against a Congressional power to mandate the participation in private commercial activity.

Although, were I to take a stab at it, I'd guess the power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".