Board 8 > Is the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) Constitutional?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Let's see what Board 8 thinks.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I sure hope so.

My opinion is no. However, I'd think an income tax increase and a single-payer system would be constitutional (and far better policy than this law we have- which isn't to say it would necessarily be better than no government involvement).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

board 8 is surely adept to judge this sort of thing

--
I'm "kind of a big deal".
http://img.imgcake.com/cyclo/Cyclopngegpngre.png

The public votes for the President and Congress, and Board 8 is probably better qualified than the general public, so I'd say Board 8 is about as qualified to evaluate this as could be expected. Obvious Board 8 can't issue any binding legal opinions.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

something being constitutional or not has hardly been an obstacle for lawmakers as of late to begin with. I don't like it in any case, the insurance industry is corrupt as hell, I don't want to be forced into paying them just to have them try to weasel out of covering things as pretty much everyone I know with health insurance has horror stories about

and Board 8 is probably better qualified than the general public

crack

are you on it?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

it looks like it'll be ruled unconstitutional and that's all that matters

--
Connecticut Huskies

are you on it?

No. Board 8 is better educated and more intelligent on average than the general public. This is not too surprising when considering the demographics of this board. Especially that this is a board about the contests, i.e. about statistics.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

No. Board 8 is better educated and more intelligent on average than the general public.

I don't believe this at all.

When you're indoctrinated with things that are untrue, it's possible to actually know less than someone who knows nothing at all.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Yes. Anyone familiar with just how far the Interstate Commerce Clause extends knows that this has plenty of precedent.

--
Tebow to Jests?
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m19b15IB731qzdb47o1_400.png

no, but I am not confident that 5 justices will agree with me

--
SephirothG, channeling awesomeness from Mershiness.
The Resurrection

Affordable healthcare? Is there something I'm missing here?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

When you're indoctrinated with things that are untrue, it's possible to actually know less than someone who knows nothing at all.

No, then you still know more, but your reasoning process is just blinded.

But Board 8 is not like that more than the general public is. You can get plenty of open, honest, discussion here- try doing so with most students at a liberal college and you won't get very far. Nor will you get anything reasonable at Yahoo or Youtube- see the pages of posts blaming Obama for anything that happens anywhere in the world.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

No, then you still know more, but your reasoning process is just blinded.

See, I disagree with this.

try doing so with most students at a liberal college and you won't get very far.

Most board 8ers either are or were students at a liberal college. What's your point?


My simple point is, it'd be FAR easier for me to reasonably convince a random idiot of the merits of capitalism than it would be to convince a board 8er. Most Board 8ers have already been so far indoctrinated by the commies that they need several years of deprogramming!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

IRL I still see people that call obama a terrorist, openly call him a ******, communist, always say barack hussein obama etc

it's fair to say that the general public is far, far less educated than board 8, and I'm probably more cynical about board 8 than you are.

Actually, my problem with the forced coverage mandate extends to common law. Making somebody sign a contract under duress generally renders a contract voidable. What the US is trying to do is force people to sign contracts under the threat of a financial penalty.

Most board 8ers either are or were students at a liberal college. What's your point?

That most (or at least many) Board 8 posters are not most students at liberal colleges. They're not the ones who dismiss your argument out of hand because you don't agree with their value judgments, without even considering your reasoning.

My simple point is, it'd be FAR easier for me to reasonably convince a random idiot of the merits of capitalism than it would be to convince a board 8er. Most Board 8ers have already been so far indoctrinated by the commies that they need several years of deprogramming!

It's not much of an accomplishment to convince a random idiot, not something you should want. That's not a sign that you are right.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

My simple point is, it'd be FAR easier for me to reasonably convince a random idiot of the merits of capitalism than it would be to convince a board 8er.

Hardly. It would probably be easier to get some random idiot to buy into your crazy-town extremist libertarianism, though. There's that "liberal education" at work.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

They're not the ones who dismiss your argument out of hand because you don't agree with their value judgments, without even considering your reasoning.

Are you kidding? MOST of them do exactly this! Granted, there are a few who are willing to engage in reasoned debate, but that's the exception, not the norm!

It's not much of an accomplishment to convince a random idiot, not something you should want. That's not a sign that you are right.

Disagree here too. Most of the ignorant masses are ignorant by choice. They aren't inherently stupid, they just choose to spend their time on reality shows rather than worldly events. Convincing them is just as valid as convincing some egghead video game nerd who ranks anime characters on board 8.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Actually, my problem with the forced coverage mandate extends to common law. Making somebody sign a contract under duress generally renders a contract voidable. What the US is trying to do is force people to sign contracts under the threat of a financial penalty.

What about taxes, state-minimum insurance, and all the trade regulations enforced by the ICC? Seems silly to single out a mandate in just one instance.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

You don't agree with me, therefore, indoctrinated.

--
I ****ing love to cuddle.
I'm being oppressed!

What about taxes, state-minimum insurance, and all the trade regulations enforced by the ICC? Seems silly to single out a mandate in just one instance.

I agree. All of those things should be struck down too!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

CeraSeptem posted...
You don't agree with me, therefore, indoctrinated.

F***ing Reapers!

--
TheRock ~ Death By Misadventure, Not Suicide

Westbrick posted...
Actually, my problem with the forced coverage mandate extends to common law. Making somebody sign a contract under duress generally renders a contract voidable. What the US is trying to do is force people to sign contracts under the threat of a financial penalty.

What about taxes, state-minimum insurance, and all the trade regulations enforced by the ICC? Seems silly to single out a mandate in just one instance.

Taxes aren't a contract.

State-minimum insurance applies to a privilege. While owning a car is certainly advantageous, you are not forced to buy one, and are therefore not forced to purchase insurance.

Trade regulations, once again, are not a contract.

Are you kidding? MOST of them do exactly this! Granted, there are a few who are willing to engage in reasoned debate, but that's the exception, not the norm!

I take it you haven't actually been on a liberal college campus, and can't compare. It is much much worse- and there are plenty of people on the other side on Board 8. Enough so that we have discussions instead of verbal lynch mobs.

Disagree here too. Most of the ignorant masses are ignorant by choice. They aren't inherently stupid, they just choose to spend their time on reality shows rather than worldly events. Convincing them is just as valid as convincing some egghead video game nerd who ranks anime characters on board 8.

Well you said random idiot, not average member of the ignorant masses. Board 8 probably is a bit more intelligent than average purely as a matter of intelligence (not education) though, just because of self-selection. Statistics are more likely to interest smarter people, so the contests tend to draw a somewhat smarter group than usual. The same is true of complete sentences and grammar, something we have that most places on the internet do not.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Taxes aren't a contract.

State-minimum insurance applies to a privilege. While owning a car is certainly advantageous, you are not forced to buy one, and are therefore not forced to purchase insurance.

Trade regulations, once again, are not a contract.

Except that Obamacare isn't a "contract" either. Where are you getting this?

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Obamacare forces you to enter into a contract with a private company.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Obamacare forces you to enter into a contract with a private company.

Ah, right.

Still, it fascinates me that had Obamacare simply taxed the money and then redirected it to private companies, this would be unquestionably constitutional. We'll see how the SC rules.

--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9

Also it's probably not constitutional and I hope it gets struck down.

--
I ****ing love to cuddle.
I'm being oppressed!

Still, it fascinates me that had Obamacare simply taxed the money and then redirected it to private companies, this would be unquestionably constitutional. We'll see how the SC rules.

Well, if it's a tax, it's a tax on income, not on not buying healthcare. I think this is an important distinction.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

honestly don't know interstate commerce well enough to say either way. do know that the law has been consistently extremely broad (to the point where civil rights cases were being argued - and won - on the basis of it) so i'll go with 'probably is' due to how convoluted a system insurance is more than anything else. the forcing your action with a private company is the gripe, however that just strikes me as an extension of 'it's easier and more efficient than if the government were to actively run this ourselves.' but if everyone has access to a hospital and the hospitals must accept them, then healthcare being forced coverage seems like a reasonable step to take since the cost has to come from somewhere and this keeps them ultimately lower than they otherwise would be. 'sides, it strikes me as kinda silly when it being a tax and then the government outsourcing the money from it into insurance would be perfectly fine.... just likely also more inefficient with less active control on the user's end. just one of those 'it's more beneficial than most alternatives so uh...'

--
The King Wang.
Listen up Urinal Cake. I already have something that tells me if I'm too drunk when I pee on it: My friends. - Colbert.

Well, I'd argue that a lot of the Court's interstate commerce jurisprudence from 1937 to 1995 was flawed (and some of the pre-1937 rulings were right). They pretty much swung from extreme to extreme after 1937. For example in 1918 the Court struck down a law against selling products of child labor across state lines, because it targeted manufacturing instead of commerce, meaning to them trade.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.