What's new
By:

Supreme Court Decisions

PearlWatson said:
The major point is that state mandates make a difference to price and quality of insurance, and if I don't like my state's retarded mandate to cover sex change operations I can go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You mean, to avoid being forced into a sex change operation? In what other area of business have we ever let one state dictate rules for another state, ever?
 
Scat said:
Kicky, take a look at this and let me know what you think. I'm mostly interested in the Commerce Clause portion of the article.
Click to expand...

I think the article is an accurate reflection of the opinion.

Fundamentally I think the idea that there are Americans who go their whole life with no interaction with the American health care system is kind of absurd, so the idea that there is non-activity that is mandated in a commerce clause sense is sort of ludicrous. What percentage of Americans could that description possibly apply to?
 
Dear America,

Healthcare really ain't that bad.

Love,

Canada.
 
One Brow said:
If the only change in the law were the mandate/tax, you would be right. The law also provided for an extension of Medicaid so more poor people would be covered, the creation of hea=lh care exchanges, etc. The number who can genuinely not afford insurance should be small.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. I'm not aware of too many of the details with the HHS Mandate. It's good to know that the Bill will give affordable health insurance to the lower classes. They need it.
 
So I'm curious if I'm a moron and someone else can explain to me what the hell is going on with the Medicaid expansion provisions of this decision.

As I read it, taking away federal funds unless a state expands its Medicaid program would apparently be too draconian to allow. So I'm curious if anyone has insight into the following issues:

1) Does this mean that the federal funds are irrevocable?

2) Does this mean that the Federal government can't take funds at all, or could they do it in a less draconian way like phase out the funds over a five year period? (This is really like Question 1, part 2 but give me some leeway here).

3) How does this square, or does it repeal, South Dakota v. Dole? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

Anyone seen any good articles about these issues? It's the part of the decision that I find most baffling.
 
PearlWatson said:
I'm a big fan of the individual mandate too...if it was voluntary.
Click to expand...

Spin baby spin!

Keeping people on your insurance long after they are a "dependent" should be allowable. Sometimes it is a good idea and sometimes it isn't. However that decision should be left up to the person being covered and the person making the payments. But my clear position on that does not fit the narrative you want to paint of me so whatever. Paint away man, paint away.

Props on a nice avatar.
 
Stoked said:
Spin baby spin!

Keeping people on your insurance long after they are a "dependent" should be allowable. Sometimes it is a good idea and sometimes it isn't. However that decision should be left up to the person being covered and the person making the payments. But my clear position on that does not fit the narrative you want to paint of me so whatever. Paint away man, paint away.

Props on a nice avatar.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of the income tax...if it voluntary and left up to the person making the income.

I could play your retarded if game all year long.
 
PearlWatson said:
I'm a big fan of the income tax...if it voluntary and left up to the person making the income.

I could play your retarded if game all year long.
Click to expand...

Feel free to stop talking to me at any time.

Still does not change the fact that you tried to make it look like I was saying something I wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top