Obamacare

[Don]

Originally Posted by WCH

Don't they make you purchase auto insurance?

I don't think you are required to have automobile insurance if you don't drive on public roads. Now, your neighbors might get pissed off driving thur their front yards...but at least you won't get ticketed for "uninsured motorist". I wonder if that would hold water for a DUI charge?

Originally Posted by Dusty

lol Yeah, to a lib.

I will have to admit, that the Ozarks are far better for hillbillies. Thankfully most of them remain there!

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

I will have to admit, that the Ozarks are far better for hillbillies. Thankfully most of them remain there!

No reason to leave. Shucks.

Originally Posted by Don

I don't think you are required to have automobile insurance if you don't drive on public roads. Now, your neighbors might get pissed off driving thur their front yards...but at least you won't get ticketed for "uninsured motorist". I wonder if that would hold water for a DUI charge?

I knew a guy who was ticketed for "DUI on a bicycle"...and the court suspended his driver's license, which caused him to lose his job. He was an auto parts truck driver and the company's insurer wouldn't insure him because of it.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by WCH

In most of the USA, if you don't drive, odds are you aren't going to find and keep a job. Public transportation in the good ole USA is sorely lacking.

MOO, the current president could have gotten more bipartisan support had he addressed transportation issues in an incremental fashion rather than focusing on mandated health care in the manner he chose.

But he didn't ask me.

[Don]

Originally Posted by WCH

I knew a guy who was ticketed for "DUI on a bicycle"...and the court suspended his driver's license, which caused him to lose his job because of it. He was an auto parts truck driver and the company's insurer wouldn't insure him because of it.

Was he on a public road? If he was driving in circles in his neighbors front yard, probably would have only been tagged with public intoxication. Kinda weird when you consider roadways as a means of government control...

Originally Posted by Don

Was he on a public road? If he was driving in circles in his neighbors front yard, probably would have only been tagged with public intoxication. Kinda weird when you consider roadways as a means of government control...

I believe he was riding on the shoulder of a public road, and someone swerved into him. In the end it was the best thing for him. At the time he was living in a cardboard box behind a bagel shop....after he lost his license, he drove to California with a friend, and wound up owning a bagel shop!

[Don]

Originally Posted by WCH

I believe he was riding on the shoulder of a public road, and someone swerved into him. In the end it was the best thing for him. At the time he was living in a cardboard box behind a bagel shop....after he lost his license, he drove to California with a friend, and wound up owning a bagel shop!

Now, see how mean old Government tyrrany makes good things happen sometimes.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

I believe he was riding on the shoulder of a public road, and someone swerved into him. In the end it was the best thing for him. At the time he was living in a cardboard box behind a bagel shop....after he lost his license, he drove to California with a friend, and wound up owning a bagel shop!

Livin' in a box to big-time businessman, and all he had to do was get the hell out of New York.

Originally Posted by Dusty

Livin' in a box to big-time businessman, and all he had to do was get the hell out of New York.

I believe he was from Michigan, but was living in box Florida despite being gainfully employed. From what I know, he was a hard working, very dependable employee, who came from a wealthy family, and was extremely bright. He left Michigan, because he wanted nothing to do with his father's wealth or advice. I believe he spent the weekend in jail, and used a public defender, rather than call his dad and ask for help when he was arrested.

While a bagel shop owner maybe considered a "big-time businessman" in Ozarks, he certainly wouldn't be in California, or New Yawk City!

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

I
While a bagel shop owner maybe considered a "big-time businessman" in Ozarks, he certainly wouldn't be in California, or New Yawk City!

Puhleez, Bro. Thar ain't a bagel one in these hyar hills.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by WCH

If you aren't working, under Obamacare mandate will you have to buy health insurance?

If you are not covered under an insurance plan (employer, medicare or qualify for medicaid), you are required to purchase your own insurance (unless for religious beliefs or financial hardship --which you will have to prove). Health Insurance Exchanges have been set up for each state to allow you to shop various plans. If you don't comply, Uncle Sam is going to charge you a penalty.

Here is the exchange for the state I reside in: http://www.healthinsurance.org/india...rance-exchange

[Airbornelawyer]

Automobile licensing requirements, including insurance, are a matter of state law. States have a great deal of discretion in what they can do. They have the general police power to make and enforce laws for public health and safety.

The Federal government, however, is a government of enumerated powers. It has only the specific powers set forth in the Constitution. Except in certain limited areas, such as in DC or on military bases, it does not have the general police power. To justify federalizing matters which normally should be the prerogative of states, Congress has tried to twist specific grants of power in the Constitution into what is effectively a police power. In this case, they have taken the power to regulate interstate commerce and turned it into a power to regulate anything that could be said to affect interstate commerce. That's what is at issue with the individual mandate. Another Congressional favorite is to condition Federal aid to states on the states changing their laws to a Federal standard, such as the conditioning of highway funds on raising the drinking age to 21.

In comparing health insurance to auto insurance, then, there is actually no argument that the states couldn't mandate buying health insurance just like they do auto insurance, under their police power. And as with other state laws you might not like, if you don't like it, you can move to a state with laws you prefer. The resulting competition among states is one of the benefits of federalism.

When you Federalize an issue, you lose this competition and force a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire country. And if your solution is wrong or has unintended consequences, it is much harder to fix. And of course there's that pesky Constitution.

[Stargazer]

I hope this bill falls flat on it's face for multiple reasons -- mandate being unconstitutional (IMHO) and being a proponent of less government not more. Aside from these important reasons, I have fundamental issues with the whole PPACA solving the problems. I was a Benefits Specialist for a PEO (professional employer organization) for several years. We handled employee benefits for small / medium size businesses. I had the opportunity to work with multiple type of insurance plans / companies, along with, the administrative side of healthcare providers. The problems that drive healthcare costs would not be solved by that monstrous legislation. It was a political grab on the back of hardships that most Americans could relate to, with little real change resulting in the solutions touted by the administration.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Badger52

His disrespectful previous State of the Union remarks made big friends with many of the Justices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012802893.html

President Obama called out the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. winced at the accusation and muttered, "Not true." And then official Washington and the legal community went to the tape, and examined it frame by frame.

What they saw -- either a president gratuitously criticizing the silent black-robed justices sitting in front of him or a conservative jurist injudiciously reacting to a man who had voted against his confirmation -- depended on from where they started.

"Rude," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said of the president. "Inappropriate" was the verdict on Alito from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

And legal experts said they had never seen anything quite like it, a rare and unvarnished showdown between two political branches during what is usually the careful choreography of the State of the Union address.

"I can't ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas law school. The closest precedent most could find was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's criticism of the court in his 1937 address to Congress.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

Democratic lawmakers and Obama Cabinet members, surrounding the six of nine justices who turned out for the event, stood and applauded.

The justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. Except for Alito.

"Not true, not true," he appeared to say (other lip readers think he said, "That's not true") as he shook his head and furrowed his brow. It is unclear what part of Obama's statement he was objecting to, although he started shaking his head after the president said "special interests."