+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it (/showthread.php?tid=134047)
The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - Grace62 - 03-27-2012
because we have human bodies.
We're all in it. The gov't isn't forcing you to have a human body. You're going to buy healthcare services. They have to be paid for.
The nature of the American insurance industry is unique. It can't be compared to buying cars or broccoli or gym memberships. There is no slippery slope, no loss of freedom.
That's the line justice Kennedy seems to be taking. We'll see if he follows that to an argument in support of the gov't case, and can convince Roberts, who seems to be worried about his court's reputation as being overly politicized.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - rjmacs - 03-27-2012
Interesting observations, but the justices are notorious for being able to play both sides in oral arguments, but return to their own considerations and reasoning when it's time to decide. I think it's risky to get ahead of the game in predicting how any of the justices will ultimately decide this case. This court is not known for reliably 'telegraphing' decisions; they prefer to keep their candor in camera.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - samintx - 03-27-2012
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - rjmacs - 03-27-2012
samintx wrote:
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
Actually, the argument above isn't that the government mandates that you purchase healthcare services or not; it's that if you have a human body, you will purchase healthcare services, period. Therefore, the 'mandate' really just regulates activity that is inevitable for everyone. The 'freedom' in this case would be the freedom to spend your money in the market however you like, with no restrictions, and Congress absolutely has the power to limit and regulate that freedom.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - Grace62 - 03-27-2012
samintx wrote:
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
We're all already fined if people don't buy insurance, through higher premiums. That's the reality of what Kennedy calls the unique American health insurance market. The fine is $95 a year and would apply to around 3% of the population, at the most. That's people who could afford insurance but don't buy it.
It's actually not simple, and the freedom you claim to be losing is freedom you don't currently have.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - Pam - 03-27-2012
samintx wrote:
The "loss of freedom" to quote you is the government mandating we buy it or be fined if we don't. Pretty simple issue.
Yeah, loss of freedom to live on the backs of others and to further the have and have not's divide. Please. cry a different song.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - katkennel - 03-27-2012
How do you defend the indefensible? Obummer's solicitor general is doing a piss-poor job. Thank goodness!
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - Grace62 - 03-27-2012
rjmacs wrote:
Interesting observations, but the justices are notorious for being able to play both sides in oral arguments, but return to their own considerations and reasoning when it's time to decide. I think it's risky to get ahead of the game in predicting how any of the justices will ultimately decide this case. This court is not known for reliably 'telegraphing' decisions; they prefer to keep their candor in camera.
I didn't make any predictions.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - rjmacs - 03-27-2012
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Interesting observations, but the justices are notorious for being able to play both sides in oral arguments, but return to their own considerations and reasoning when it's time to decide. I think it's risky to get ahead of the game in predicting how any of the justices will ultimately decide this case. This court is not known for reliably 'telegraphing' decisions; they prefer to keep their candor in camera.
I didn't make any predictions.
Nor did i say you did. My comment was generically about how difficult it is to see, from comments in arguments, how a case will be decided or written.
Re: The gov't isn't forcing anyone into the health insur. market, we're all already in it - cbelt3 - 03-27-2012
Grace.... interesting assumption, and remarkably false. Given that there are certain religious sects which refuse to use 'modern' 'health services'.
Justices ask great logical questions in their review of the case at hand. It's quite a lot of fun, but as noted above, not necessarily an indication of how the voting will occur.
And, of course, Justice Thomas never has anything to ask. I expect he prefers to simply read about it later.