Metal Sludge Gossip Board

looks like they have decided its unconstitutional (and rightfully so).

Virgina rules EVERYTHING!!!!

I'm glad you concur. I was worried about your opinion.

I.O.K.T.B.A.A.J.I.Y.A.R.
































It's OK to be an activist judge if you are Republican......doncha know.

tin00can wrote:I'm glad you concur. I was worried about your opinion.

Damn, that's just cruel.

(Love the sig, KandBD)

KneelandBobDylan wrote:I.O.K.T.B.A.A.J.I.Y.A.R.
































It's OK to be an activist judge if you're Republican......doncha know.

so a judge who rules that it's unconstitutional for the government to force it's citizens to do business with private companies is an activist judge?

Is United States Eastern District of Michigan Judge George Steel, who ruled the law Constitutional, also not an activist judge? This is long from being decided.

LOFL - this shit is a riot. People arguing that the government *forcing* its citizens to purchase/have healthcare is anything but unconstitutional.

Regardless of your affiliations/beliefs, how can one see it another way?

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Is United States Eastern District of Michigan Judge George Steel, who ruled the law Constitutional, also not an activist judge? This is long from being decided.

It's going to come down to the SCOTUS, just like everyone knew it would from the beginning. Expediting that process may not be the best strategy from a partisan point of view, but the best thing for the country is to get it over with one way or the other.

p-13's a Virgina.

bane wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:Is United States Eastern District of Michigan Judge George Steel, who ruled the law Constitutional, also not an activist judge? This is long from being decided.

It's going to come down to the SCOTUS, just like everyone knew it would from the beginning. Expediting that process may not be the best strategy from a partisan point of view, but the best thing for the country is to get it over with one way or the other.

That's true. If it 's thrown out, it would be best for it to happen before too much is implemented. It will be a big mess otherwise. Either way, the sooner it's settled, the sooner they can quit posturing and get to work.

wylde342 wrote:LOFL - this shit is a riot. People arguing that the government *forcing* its citizens to purchase/have healthcare is anything but unconstitutional.

Regardless of your affiliations/beliefs, how can one see it another way?

I don't see how the government forcing it's citizens to do business with any private corporation is constitutional. Should they have the right to pass laws requiring us to buy whatever they damn well please?

MotleyMaiden wrote:I don't see how it is any different then being required to carry car insurance. If they rule that requiring health care is unconstitutional will that make requiring auto insurance also unconsititutional??

No, because you don't have to own a car.

bane wrote:

MotleyMaiden wrote:I don't see how it is any different then being required to carry car insurance. If they rule that requiring health care is unconstitutional will that make requiring auto insurance also unconsititutional??

No, because you don't have to own a car.

You don't have to stay alive, either.

Driving is not considered a right but a privilege under law. States have considerable leeway in establishing requirements to receive driving privileges. You don't need auto insurance to own a car but you are required to have it to operate it on public roads.

MotleyMaiden wrote:I don't see how it is any different then being required to carry car insurance. If they rule that requiring health care is unconstitutional will that make requiring auto insurance also unconsititutional??

You are not required to have auto insurance. You can own and operate your motor vehicle on your private property all you want without penalties or a tax.

In most states you are NOT required to have automobile insurance unless three conditions are met:
1.You have a valid driver's license
2. You own a motor vehicle
3. You drive that motor vehicle on public highways

When you ride with your friend to go out to dinner, do you have to have auto insurance? No. So the ridiculous comparison dies right there.

Also, when it comes to auto insurance, most states say that you only must have insurance to protect the OTHER GUY! King Obama says you must buy health insurance to protect yourself.

MotleyMaiden wrote:Okay. I see your points. Personally, I think the health care bill was useless without a public option. I don't see how forcing people to buy health care insurance they can't afford now is really going to work anyway.

I do think people NEED insurance, however. As someone who has been directly involved in healthcare for more than 20 years I have seen the results of what happens when people don't have it. The biggest problem is people don't see a doctor for minor issues early on. By the time they become really sick and end up in the ER their minor problem is now a major illness that cost thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. They are entitled to treatment to the best of the hospital's capability regardless of their ability to pay so the hospital passes that bill along to the state. The tax payer ends up paying for it anyway. Treating them early on would be cheaper not to mention they would miss less time from work, also a plus for society.

Very well said. In effect, we have national healthcare now, except that you have to wait for ethe problem to become severe enough to take it to the ER. It'd be cheaper to be able to go in when it's minor, and preventive healthcare would be much better than what we have now, which is wait to get sick and then try to rein it in.

Our whole society would be more productive, therefore wealthier, and more able to afford this with that kind of a system. There is a curve when implementing such a system before the payoffs begin, but it would happen. Also, anybody who says their care qualitry would suffer, would still always be able to pay for better care themselves. I don't see that going away. These are the same kind of people who argued against a minimum wage many years ago. It's not gonna hurt anyone and is going to help everyone in the long run.

MotleyMaiden wrote:Okay. I see your points. Personally, I think the health care bill was useless without a public option. I don't see how forcing people to buy health care insurance they can't afford now is really going to work anyway.

The main demographic that the government, and the insurance industry, wants to force to buy insurance are the young and healthy. In other words, the people that won't use it. That's the only way that the rest of us will be able to afford it under the current plan.

bane wrote:

MotleyMaiden wrote:Okay. I see your points. Personally, I think the health care bill was useless without a public option. I don't see how forcing people to buy health care insurance they can't afford now is really going to work anyway.

The main demographic that the government, and the insurance industry, wants to force to buy insurance are the young and healthy. In other words, the people that won't use it. That's the only way that the rest of us will be able to afford it under the current plan.

Even the young and "healthy" get sick though. A very good friend of mine died 2 years ago of colon cancer. Even though she had good insurance she ignored the problem for several years because she though she just had simple sciatica and when it did become severe she had a GI doc completely blow her off because she was the wrong sex and age to have colon ca. She was literally told she had a better chance of winning the lottery then she did of having cancer. She died 7 weeks later.

But I do see your point of insurance companies wanting people to buy the insurance they would make more money that way. And that is the reason I actually hate insurance companies and just wish they would be forced to deal directly with the govt. Every one bitches about how the govt would screw it up. But seriously, medicaid and Tricare cover everything. Medicare doesn't cover as much but that is because most seniors already have a secondary insurance that covers what Medicare doesn't.

Young people get sick, sure, but the odds are far more in their favor. I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money. They're a business, they aren't a charity, but I do think that reform is desperately needed. Making a profit is all well and good. Ripping people off isn't. All that said, count me in the camp that doesn't want the government anywhere close to my health care. I have zero confidence in the federal government's ability to run it efficiently.

bane wrote:Young people get sick, sure, but the odds are far more in their favor. I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money. They're a business, they aren't a charity, but I do think that reform is desperately needed. Making a profit is all well and good. Ripping people off isn't. All that said, count me in the camp that doesn't want the government anywhere close to my health care. I have zero confidence in the federal government's ability to run it efficiently.

Tricare, the V.A. and Medicaid work pretty well.

bane wrote:Young people get sick, sure, but the odds are far more in their favor. I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money. They're a business, they aren't a charity, but I do think that reform is desperately needed. Making a profit is all well and good. Ripping people off isn't. All that said, count me in the camp that doesn't want the government anywhere close to my health care. I have zero confidence in the federal government's ability to run it efficiently.

So, leaving it in the hands that have created the clusterfuck we have currently is your best option? Who do you think will reform it besides the government? The insurance companies have zero interest in changing the current system while building their share value with the bodies of the dead.

MotleyMaiden wrote:Profit is one thing. But the tricks they use to make those profits are ridiculous and almost criminal. Pre-existing conditions for one thing. People pay outrageous premiums and then can't get coverage for conditions like cancer and diabetes. Shameful when they are adults and absolutely horrific if we are talking about chidren. Being able to regulate to you what tests you can have and when. They are now trying to tell women they will not cover mammograms until they are 50. The American Cancer Society and Oncologists are trying to fight that as well.

I have to agree regarding pre-existing conditions.......one of the reasons I don't have insurance is that I can't afford to pay premiums AND the cost of asthma meds until the waiting period for coverage ended.

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

bane wrote:Young people get sick, sure, but the odds are far more in their favor. I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money. They're a business, they aren't a charity, but I do think that reform is desperately needed. Making a profit is all well and good. Ripping people off isn't. All that said, count me in the camp that doesn't want the government anywhere close to my health care. I have zero confidence in the federal government's ability to run it efficiently.

So, leaving it in the hands that have created the clusterfuck we have currently is your best option? Who do you think will reform it besides the government? The insurance companies have zero interest in changing the current system while building their share value with the bodies of the dead.

I didn't say that. I think government regulation needs to happen. I think it's well past time that the entire system got bitch slapped back into shape. I don't think the government needs to take over and run it.

lerxstcat wrote:

bane wrote:Young people get sick, sure, but the odds are far more in their favor. I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money. They're a business, they aren't a charity, but I do think that reform is desperately needed. Making a profit is all well and good. Ripping people off isn't. All that said, count me in the camp that doesn't want the government anywhere close to my health care. I have zero confidence in the federal government's ability to run it efficiently.

Tricare, the V.A. and Medicaid work pretty well.

OK. They work, once you discount the tremendous amount of corruption and inefficiency that goes on in that red tape bureaucratic disaster. Yeah, they work great.

MotleyMaiden wrote:Profit is one thing. But the tricks they use to make those profits are ridiculous and almost criminal. Pre-existing conditions for one thing. People pay outrageous premiums and then can't get coverage for conditions like cancer and diabetes. Shameful when they are adults and absolutely horrific if we are talking about chidren. Being able to regulate to you what tests you can have and when. They are now trying to tell women they will not cover mammograms until they are 50. The American Cancer Society and Oncologists are trying to fight that as well.

I agree. It's high time that the industry got called on it's bullshit. The system is set up to cover people that aren't sick and to squeeze every last dime out of those that are. That needs to change. I'm not disputing that. I'm not a fan of insurance company policies and I'm fully behind government regulation. I'm simply stating that I don't think making a profit is a bad thing. That industry is on everybody's shit list these days, with good reason, but people seem to forget that the insurance industry is a for profit business.

bane wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

bane wrote:Young people get sick, sure, but the odds are far more in their favor. I don't have a problem with insurance companies making money. They're a business, they aren't a charity, but I do think that reform is desperately needed. Making a profit is all well and good. Ripping people off isn't. All that said, count me in the camp that doesn't want the government anywhere close to my health care. I have zero confidence in the federal government's ability to run it efficiently.

So, leaving it in the hands that have created the clusterfuck we have currently is your best option? Who do you think will reform it besides the government? The insurance companies have zero interest in changing the current system while building their share value with the bodies of the dead.

I didn't say that. I think government regulation needs to happen. I think it's well past time that the entire system got bitch slapped back into shape. I don't think the government needs to take over and run it.

Under the both the current plan and the original proposal, the government is not taking over the health care industry, yet you are crying and whining like it was some huge Hugo Chavez style nationalization plan. You can't have government regulation without the government being involved.