Are we all strangers in our own country?

Don't worry. The mandate won't stand up in court. God, November 2010 can't get here fast enough.

 

While they're at it they can take all the guess work out of life. Why not make certain people work certain jobs based on the common good for society.

 

Can you expand on that for this dim bulb

 

That's simply not how insurance works.

You can't say 'well, I don't have diabetes, so I don't need to be covered for that,' then turn around and add diabetes coverage when you get diagnosed.

You can't say, 'well, I'm only 29, so I don't need to be covered for a colonoscopy,' or 'I'm not due for one until next year,' then turn around and add coverage for that the years you need one.

And you can't say, 'well, I'm 27 and in good health, so I don't need insurance at all,' because that's a big part of the problem as it is.

If you're gonna do that, then there's no sense in having insurance at all.

(All this is not to say that I don't think the insurance industry is bullshit and needs to be strapped Rosie O'Donnell-style into a rocket to the sun.)

 

Can't wait to make it three whuppings in a row, eh?

 

The argument is, the Federal government cannot mandate that someone purchase something. And there's actually a solid argument to be made. It should, however, be noted that I don't think the Obama administration -- or progressives in general -- would shed any tears over the mandates going away. They were a concession to the insurance companies to keep them from strangling this legislation in its crib. If it were to be challenged by conservatives and ruled unconstitutional before the bulk of the legislation takes effect in 2013, I think most folks on the Democratic side would be fine with that.

Now, the Federal government certainly can pass a law that requires that states mandate insurance coverage or not receive federal highway money.

 

Now you know how we felt about November 2008, ever since the day after Election Day 2004.

 

That's why it's not a criminal penalty, but a tax one.

 

Okay, expecting everyone else to pay for people with pre-existing conditions (which is what mandating insurance companies not discriminate against them is) while still running the system through private insurers is idiotic.

Either let us all pay for our own medical expenses or nationalize it and let us all share the risks and costs. Half-measures give us the worst of both worlds.

 

Correct, but not paying that tax is a federal crime, which carries a criminal penalty. It would all come down to which hair the Supreme Court wanted to split. The Federal government can do this. The challenge would be whether they have done it in the correct way.

Like I said, though, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing passed and then having the mandates stripped out.

 

Doubly agree. And remember this is just a start, not the end. You can bet your ass that if these programs prove popular they will be expanded in the future. (Remember that social security was initially only offered to small group of people.)

I'd encourage any liberals disappointed by the current health reforms to read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081202575.html

The plan lugnuts is talking about would mandate that 90 percent of insurance company operating costs be for providing health care -- as opposed to more than 10 percent being taken up by administrative costs, inefficiencies and corporate BS. Good insurance companies already do this.

 

Expansion of Medicare a possible casualty of ongoing debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

One problem with the fact that "this is just a start" is just when you feel reassured that progress is being made, the game might still change again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091217/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul