villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:36 PM
Original message |
So if forced health care purchasing is unconstitutional, what about Romneycare in Mass.? |
|
Does that have to be suspended, too?
What about any other tax penalties (or rewards?) that coerce behavior?
|
Xenotime
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message |
1. This is going to crash in on the tea bagger's heads when it goes to the USSC |
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
SlimJimmy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:38 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Here's a clue. Massachusetts (one of the several states) (nt) |
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:50 PM
Response to Original message |
4. No one is forced to purchase health care. The issue is forced purchase of health INSURANCE. |
|
I don't support it, but that's because I don't support the EXISTENCE of health "insurance".
SINGLE. PAYER. NOW.
|
villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. distinction noted, but I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:57 PM
Response to Original message |
6. States have different powers than the Federal govt. |
|
MA may have it in their constitution.
|
villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. ...but if it runs counter to something deemed "prohibited" in the U.S. Constitution...? |
|
...should this ruling stand... :shrug:
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Did he say that it was prohibited in the constitution? |
|
In his mind it's an issue of whether it is permitted (for the federal govt) rather than whether it's explicitly prohibited.
|
villager
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. I think he's saying it's specifically unconstitutional.... |
|
...though that's based on the preliminary reports I've been reading.
so I'm speculating on what it might mean if that perception is upheld.
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. prohibited to the federal government does not imply prohibited to the states |
|
You are making an unsubstantiated leap there.
|
jdp349
(372 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
15. Depends on the nature of unconstitutionality I think |
|
if somehow a successful argument is made that appeals to the Bill of Rights then yeah, it would be struck down everywhere.
Otherwise the constitution generally defines the limits of the federal government.
You would have to otherwise appeal to the state constitution to strike down a state law I believe.
|
cbdo2007
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message |
8. You actually make a good point here that most people miss..... |
|
which is that this part of the Health Care Reform bill was Romney's idea, and he will most likely be the Republican front runner for the GOP for Pres in 2012.
With all the Repubes coming out so strongly against this, it will be really negative for him during the election when they are still complaining about Health Care. That takes this issue completely off the table.
|
elocs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Yep, "RomneyCare". If he is the nominee, hang that sign around his neck |
|
and let him defend it. Of course, any other Republican running against him in the primaries will do the same thing.
|
OHdem10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message |
13. When will the Govt send this to Supreme Court for a decision??? |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. It could take some time. |
|
It isn't common for the USSC to take a case that hasn't had a circuit court rule.
|
TheKentuckian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-31-11 07:54 PM
Response to Original message |
16. What is this forced health care you speak of? |
|
The mandate to purchase the for profit, criminal insurance cartel's "product"?
You do realize that the Federal government doesn't mandate such a purchase and the states only dictate it for active drivers, operating a vehicle, on their streets? You think we should be subject to purchasing a private and for profit product based on existing? My sister doesn't drive so she isn't mandated to buy insurance. I know plenty of others in similar situations. My other sister usually only drives for work and sometimes rents but she carries no policy herself.
The insurance mandate is to independently drive your own vehicle on public streets, you can even own a car with no coverage. The comparison is weak.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message |