Mandating people to buy health care insurance

3/29/2010 9:38:17 PM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
idlehour Montgomery, AL 61, joined May. 2009	In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance. This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine. This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...” So the next time you hear a Repuglican state that mandating someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, kindly explain to them that the recent passage of health care reform is the 2nd time in U.S. history that congress has passed, and a president has signed into law a mandate that some people must buy health care insurance. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
4/9/2010 5:20:18 AM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	The individual mandate was always a Republican idea. Its straight from the health insurance companies. Of course the insurers want a law that says that everyone must buy their product. I believe that it is unprecedented, in spite of your example. Nobody is forced by the government to engage in being a seaman or employing a seaman. So the government is regulating a voluntary activity. But for a person to be mandated to buy health insurance, they must simply EXIST without engaging in any regulated activity. I believe that this mandate will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, but the rest of the legislation will survive. The "dirty little secret" of the law is in the enforcement section which prohibits the enforcement of the fine for not having health insurance. So there really is no mandate except in fantayland.
4/13/2010 9:22:32 AM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
idlehour Montgomery, AL 61, joined May. 2009	From what I understand, when the bill is argued before any court, it will be argued not on any of the amendments, but on the right of the Federal Government to levy taxes. But who knows what this activist conservative Supreme Court will say! Who would have dreamed that the Supreme Court back in the 1890's would read into the Constitution inalienable rights for corporations just like a person?! And who would have thought that this current Supreme Court would say that corporations have an unrestricted, unencumbered right to unlimited free speech. I've read the Constitution a couple of times, and no where did I read that a man made instrument of business has the rights of a living, breathing person. But thats what activist conservative courts since the 1890's have said ! In my opinion, if you can't vote, be drafted and go to war, get sick and require health care, have a baby and raise a child, have to work and make a living from your very own sweat and effort....then you are not a person and not entitled to the benefits of the U.S. Constitution. What should be asked of repuglicans and these tea baggers is: Do you support corporations having the same inalienable rights as a living breathing person? I say He11 no!
4/18/2010 9:29:59 PM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
coolchick Woodway, TX 64, joined Nov. 2006	Idlehour & Dan. I say that, given the opportunity to be covered under health insurance - only a fool would decline coverage. The Health Care Reform Act makes it possible for anyone to be covered, and those who are of low enough income will get to be covered under the expansion of Medicare. So, come 2014, there will be no excuse for any American not to be covered either thru their employer, or the government program, or by buying directly thru one of the co-ops. The fine for those who refuse coverage will be miniscule (due once yearly), and low-income Americans will be exempted from being fined. The foolish who opt for being fined, they will be offered very generous and extended terms for paying the fine. Dan, you are so right. The idea of a health insurance mandate did originate from the Republicans at least 20 years ago. As recently as 2008, this was being touted by Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney signed the same requirement into law when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Ask Hillary Clinton about it, also. One of the main arguments that Republicans made against her health-care plan back in the 90's was - wait for it - that no health care overhaul would be needed if every American was mandated to purchase health insurance. Back then, the GOP referred to purchasing health insurance as a "personal responsibility". Now, of course, Republicans are busy trying to re-write history as regards their position on health insurance mandates. Now, they cry "Unconstitutional!" Well, that's what they say about pretty much everything the Democrats are trying to get passed.
4/20/2010 7:47:00 PM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	The mandate is unconstitutional. I am a card-carrying dues-paying member of the ACLU and I am hoping that the ACLU will fight it. The only reason that it was included in the bill was to make it more palatable to Republicans and the insurance companies. After all, it was the brainchild of the insurance companies to begin with. There is NO EXPANSION OF MEDICARE. I am very sorry to say this. I wish there was. The expansion is in Medicaid which is healthcare for the indigent. Its called MediCal here in California and may have a different name in Texas; but the rates which are paid to providers are so low that almost NO providers accept it other than hospitals and public (not for profit) clinics. Even then, its only being raised to 125% of poverty level. This bill is not what we wanted. But it is still an improvement over the status quo, especially for people who could not buy insurance at all before. The CONDUCT of the insurance companies will now come under federal scrutiny and thats a good thing. But our healthcare system will still be far inferior to the systems of Canada, Japan, Taiwan, and almost every country in Europe. Why does the USA have to be the country that treats its own people WORSE than any of those other countries. Its not only healthcare! Its also our so-called "social safety-net" which DOES NOT EXIST! Its better to be poor or old and poor or disabled and poor in any of those other countries than here. Don't we have more homeless people than any other "advanced" country? And far more people incarcerated? And these things go hand in hand because incarceration gives people food and shelter and clothing and medical care. All of the things that they can't get living on the streets! I welcolm this small victory.
4/20/2010 10:09:55 PM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
coolchick Woodway, TX 64, joined Nov. 2006	Dan. I'm also a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I haven't seen anything in their newsletters or email alerts that mentions the health insurance mandate as being an issue. Have I missed something? How can the health insurance mandate be unconstitutional, if the car insurance mandate is not? I haven't heard of anyone taking the car insurance mandate to the Supreme Court. Again, those who cannot afford to pay will be exempted from the mandate. I agree this was put in the bill to appease the Republicans, but I don't get the argument that it's unconstitutional. I feel that those who can afford health insurance premiums, but who choose to not to pay for it - those people are taking advantage of the rest of us who do pay for it. I've known people who say they can't afford health insurance, but they can afford beer, cigarettes, junk food, and various forms of entertainment. Those same people, they know that if they show up in the E.R. when they get sick or hurt - they know the hospital has to treat them. Those same dead-beats that I've known, they also know they can ignore the bills that come from the hospital. Nothing is done to you if you refuse to pay a hospital bill. The Health Care Reform Act makes it easy as pie to get health care coverage in some form or fashion. There is no excuse now not to be covered.
4/22/2010 5:21:16 AM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	Hi CoolChick! Its always a pleasure to read your posts. The Constitution gives the federal government certain enumerated powers. Among these is the power to regulate commerce among the states. This power to regulate commerce is the only justification that can resonably be used to justify the Healthcare Reform Act. But never before in the history of the United States has the federal government said to all citizens: "You must purchase a certain product or service from a private company otherwise you have committed an offense and will be subject to a fine." No person has ever been compelled by the federal government to purchase any product or service before unless it was somehow related to an occupation or activity which was engaged in by choice. You brought up car insurance and I'm glad that you did. 1)They are different in that no person is FORCED to own or drive a car so that one may choose not to own or drive a car and one does not have to buy insurance for it. 2) The federal government has never required anyone to purchase car insurance. Only the states have done that and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves the rights to the states which are not granted to the federal government. The states may or may not have the power to compell their citizens to purchase health insurance; that is a different issue and depends upon the constitutions of each state involved. But the federal government violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution by usurping this power from the states if they are deemed to have this power. We often think of the federal government as being more powerful than the states. But the Constitution grants only limited powers to the federal government to preserve the individual sovereignty of the states. That is why we go to state schools, not federal. We have state DMVs, not federal. I am not questioning the federal government's power to REGULATE health insurance, that exists. And the remainder of the Healthcare Reform Act is justified by the power to regulate commerce. But the individual mandate goes way beyond regulation. The only thing that I can think of that its comparable to is military conscription. We are being "drafted" into buying health insurance. I don't know when or if this is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court but I can't see how they can declare this constitutional. I'm a member of the ACLU because I believe in protecting the RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS which are guaranteed by the BILL OF RIGHTS which are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These are the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which were ignored and trampled on by the George W. Bush administration including the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right of habeus corpus (can't be locked up with no reason). I believe in the LIMITED POWERS of the government, so that the freedom of individuals can be preserved. So I don't believe that the government has the power, under our Constitution (which George W. Bush once called "a scrap of paper") to compel all citizens to buy health insurance. It seems to me that the ACLU should always be arguing on the side of individual liberty versus government mandates. How did you get that star and why don't I have one? [Edited 4/22/2010 5:29:13 AM ]
4/24/2010 8:55:20 AM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
idlehour Montgomery, AL 61, joined May. 2009	The one thing that I think is being missed here, is the power of the Federal, state and local governments to tax. This is where I believe the constitutionality will be argued. And not the 10th amendment.
4/24/2010 10:28:03 PM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	The tax argument addresses the constitutionality of the penalty. It does not address the constitutionality of the mandate itself.
4/24/2010 11:13:41 PM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
danguitarman Redding, CA 63, joined Aug. 2007	Let us imagine, and may God forbid, that the Supreme Court were to agree with this "taxation" argument that the public may be compelled to purchase a product or service which is deemed to serve the public good, as long as it generates revenue for the federal government and is therefore justified as a "tax". Now imagine please, that the republicans sweep into victorious elections in both houses of congress and in 2012 Sara Palin becomes President. The republican congress passes a bill and President Palin signs it into law which compells every American to purchase her book. This is deemed to be in the public interest because it promotes literacy, is educational, and will increase the love of Americans for their country and their president. Would you argue that this law which compels every American to buy Sara Palin's book is constitutional because the penalty for non-compliance will increase federal tax revenue as it will be enforced through the IRS? I don't find that argument very convincing. I don't think this law would be justified by the commerce clause, or the tax clause, or any article or amendment of the Constitution. I don't believe that the Constitution allows the federal government to compell the people to purchase any product or service even if it is deemed to serve the public good. I am confident that the ACLU will see it the same way and so will the Supreme Court. Right now the teabaggers are using the mandate as an anti-Obama lightning rod. The sooner it is thrown out of the Healthcare Reform Act by the Supreme Court, the better. [Edited 4/24/2010 11:18:47 PM ]
7/23/2010 12:55:32 AM	Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798
idlehour Montgomery, AL 61, joined May. 2009	I really think that analogy doesn't have much merit. Everyone, most starting at birth will need health care as provided in a hospital or doctors office many times during their lives. If you are human, you are going to get sick and have accidents periodically throughout your life, its unavoidable. Allowing someone to say that they are healthy and never will get sick, or have an accident is just allowing people to free load on society. They will need treatment in a hospital, and or doctors office probably dozens of times during their lifetime. Now if a person can testify that they have never received health care treatment of any kind in a hospital or doctors office, and if they do in the future, they will never accept treatment and cost tax payers money, then I can see not taxing the person. And if they get in a car accident, and are horribly injured, paramedics should just ignore their 911 call. Passer-byes can just push their car to the side of the road and go on with their business.

usasexguide info

casualhookup com

usasexguide info

casualhookup com

Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798

Mandating people to buy health care insurance - John Adams in 1798