|
On January 26 2011 04:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:40 Electric.Jesus wrote:On January 26 2011 03:48 xDaunt wrote:Here's an excerpt from a paper that I wrote on the subject: Conversely, those subscribers that are unprofitable to the insurers can be very unprofitable. It has been estimated that the top 10% most expensive patients account for 69% of all health care costs. Even more striking is the fact that 1% of patients account for 25% of all health care costs. Today, some private insurance companies face even more disproportionate payout schedules. For example, Blue Shield of California has reported that approximately 90% of their distributions go to 10% of their insured patients. “End of life care,” health care given to a patient in final weeks before death, accounts for approximately 10-12% of total health care costs and 27% of Medicare costs. Statistically, 1 in every 1000 households will receive a “shock” of medical expenses totaling at least $125,000 in present value during any given year. Err, should I laugh or cry at this? Of course the §expensive patients" cause more costs. That's why they are called "expensive", in the first place. This is like a car insurance company saying: "Those idiots that have accidents cost us much more than people who dont't". Go figure. The whole idea of health insurance is that you pay money into a big pool because you can then afford treatment that is expensive. You risk paying more than you get out, at the same time, if you are lucky enough not to suffer from serious illness. The solution is not to kick out the poeple who cost too much, obviously, because that would make the whole idea pointless. Yea I don't understand the point either. Of course there are way more sick people than healthy people. There BETTER be, or else the whole insurance thing wouldn't work at all. The "cheap" patients are healthy people who probably don't even cost the insurance company any money. It's supposed to be like that. And really, that has nothing to do with how incredibly expensive healthcare is. For those 1%, you better hope that they have healthcare.
The point is that if you're going to saddle the insurance companies with a bunch of unhealth patients (ie, people with preexisting conditions), you necessarily are driving up their costs. This leads to one or multiple of the following:
1) premium increases for everyone else
2) cuts in benefits for everyone else
3) the insurance companies going out of business because they're unable to reconcile their liabilities with their subscriber base.
Do you see the problem now?
|
On January 26 2011 04:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:44 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance? So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there?
The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 04:50 DoubleReed wrote:
And really, that has nothing to do with how incredibly expensive healthcare is. For those 1%, you better hope that they have healthcare.
Insurance and health care are two different things. I know people conflate the two all the time.
|
On January 26 2011 04:52 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:44 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance? So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there? The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/judge_rules_health-insurance_m.html
Try again, scooter.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 04:52 xDaunt wrote:
The point is that if you're going to saddle the insurance companies with a bunch of unhealth patients (ie, people with preexisting conditions), you necessarily are driving up their costs. This leads to one or multiple of the following:
1) premium increases for everyone else
2) cuts in benefits for everyone else
3) the insurance companies going out of business because they're unable to reconcile their liabilities with their subscriber base.
Do you see the problem now?
I don't see a problem with blowing up the health insurance business model. I think the US would be better off without health insurance as the choice mode of coordinating health care costs.
|
1) premium increases for everyone else
This is already happening. And will continue to happen. They do not care if they price customers out of their business. The remaining customers will keep them profitable.
2) cuts in benefits for everyone else
this is also already happening.
|
On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:43 Electric.Jesus wrote:
Yes, please listen to what this guy says. Healthcare is never free. It is merely the question who pays for it and whether everyone pays the same amount ot whether you pay according to your income. This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive?
The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of.
Just who is being insulated from risk here?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 04:56 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote:
This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive? The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of. Just who is being insulated from risk here?
 People with unhealthy habits.
|
On January 26 2011 04:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:52 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:44 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance? So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there? The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/judge_rules_health-insurance_m.htmlTry again, scooter.
And 14 other similar challenges were dismissed by other federal judges.
Let me reiterate:
You claim that this bill FORCES people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no such provision.
|
On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too.
I agree! Also, if you want to have the benefits of living in a free country, you should have to go yourself and fight in the Middle East to keep our country safe from terrorists! What's this socialist bullshit with other people fighting FOR you? I'm not running some kind of lemonade stand to send YOUR kid to Afghanistan!
Taxes for roads? Education? Fuck that noise! If I want my kid to have an education I'll hire a tutor. I'll build my own roads, for my own use. You're an immigrant? Lost your money through a scam or poor choices? That's your shit to deal with, go back to your country / wise the hell up!
I am also enraged that we pay taxes to house criminals but don't have the logical depth to realize the only other options are executing drunks and just letting them be.
/strawman
|
On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done?
I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing.
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
|
On January 26 2011 04:56 DamnCats wrote:This is already happening. And will continue to happen. THEY DONT CARE IF THEY PRICE CUSTOMERS OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS. The remaining customers will keep them profitable. this is also already happening.
Of course these things were already happening due to other factors that Obamacare doesn't even address (which is Obamacare's critical failing). However, mandating that insurance companies accept patients with preexisting conditions obviously exacerbates these problems.
|
On January 26 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:52 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:44 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance? So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there? The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/judge_rules_health-insurance_m.htmlTry again, scooter. And 14 other similar challenges were dismissed by other federal judges. Let me reiterate:You claim that this bill FORCES people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no such provision.
How are you missing the fact that the federal judge was ruling on the precise provision that you claim does not exist?
|
On January 26 2011 04:58 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:56 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote:
This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive? The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of. Just who is being insulated from risk here? People with unhealthy habits.
???
unhealthy people are obviously risking their health. It's not like you come away from a hospital all chipper and magically wonderful.
Don't you think it's a bit more risky to not encourage people to go to the doctor? I mean almost all serious diseases can be mitigated a lot more if people catch them early.
Edit: And seriously what magical world do you live in? Nobody thinks to themselves "Yea, it's fine, I got free healthcare. Smokin' ain't gonna kill me." This just isn't realistic.
|
On January 26 2011 04:58 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:56 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote:
This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive? The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of. Just who is being insulated from risk here? People with unhealthy habits.
That's a pretty stretching application of moral hazard.
So you claim that universal health care encourages people to be unhealthy? I have difficulty believing that.
Medical costs are rising in the United States and yet people aren't living any healthier.
|
On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:
No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations.
It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance.
The government does no such thing - unless the government is also going to get into the business of fixing insurance premium prices. The insurance premiums are going to be just as expensive and individuals who found insurance too expensive will be forced to buy it or face a stiff penalty. The bill also introduces even more moral hazard into the system.
|
On January 26 2011 04:58 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:56 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 TanGeng wrote:
This is one of the largest moral hazard in UK, Canada, Sweden, and France. It's a huge moral hazard in any other government sponsored health care plan. Care to spell out how these government plans deal with people not having to pay for the health care they elect to receive? The cost of these programs would surely be included in taxes. I don't know what this moral hazard is you are speaking of. Just who is being insulated from risk here? People with unhealthy habits.
Yap, you have a piint there. You could argue - and rightfully so - that they have an incentive to keep up their unhealthy behavior. The question is whether free health care is their sole motivation which I highly doubt (and you, too, hopefully). You could also argue that avoiding chronic disease (or premature death) is a strong incentive. Also, unhealythy behavior can be avoided by other means such as education (specific education about health risks has worked pretty well in german schools).
|
On January 26 2011 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:59 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:43 DoubleReed wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? This would only have a valid point if the healthcare companies didn't have to change any of their own policies. Heathcare companies are also forced to provide certain people with healthcare at reasonable prices. It's not nearly as simple as the government saying "You have to buy health insurance." Sorry, the issue is actually more complicated than that. I thought liberals were more concerned about personal liberties than how laws affect corporations? Obamacare FORCES people to buy products from private companies or face fines and imprisonment. It's not like car insurance where you can choose not to drive. Are you democrats/liberals so blind from partisanship that you don't understand the significance of what the government has done? I honestly don't consider myself that liberal. But stereotypically liberals are for less economic freedom and more social freedom (gay marriage, abortion blah blah blah). So its actually perfectly liberal to support that sort of thing. No, I'm saying it is not that simple. The government is also forcing companies to provide affordable healthcare. It's really not the same thing as the government forcing you to buy a product, and it's honestly more similar to socialized healthcare through private corporations. It's actually a pretty damn serious issue that so many middle class americans are without health insurance. Doesn't matter whether Obamacare and its mandates were passed with good intentions to fix legitimate problems. It still has to be done in a way that passes Constitutional muster. Again, if the government can force you to buy a product from a private company, you have to ask yourself where that power ends.
Uhh.... but didn't the supreme court judges rule that it does pass Constitutional muster? And don't they know a hell of a lot more about law, the constitution, and executive power than both of us?'
Though, is there any kind of dissenting opinion or anything that would support you?
|
On January 26 2011 05:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:53 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:52 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:44 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On January 26 2011 04:32 Consolidate wrote:On January 26 2011 04:25 LazyMacro wrote:I'm glad the Republicans did this. The Obamacare bill needs to go away. It's not right for the government to tell me I have to buy a product or service. It's just plain wrong. And it's not cheap, and it's not free. On January 26 2011 03:47 hifriend wrote:
Got a dental bill at $500 last month, made me realize just how awesome free healthcare is. u_u I'm sorry, but it's this attitude that drives me nuts. It's not free! Do you think that dentist will do $500 of work for free because it's "free healthcare"? No, of course not. I'm paying for it. You're paying for it. Everyone else is, too. The government forces you to buy the service of education does not it? Roads aren't free. Do you think the government would have have you not pay taxes in exchange for promising never to use their roads? This health care is 'unconstitutional' argument is pretty tenuous. Tenuous? There's a big difference between the government taxing you and providing services with that tax money and the government forcing you to buy a product from a private company. What if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to go buy a gun or face imprisonment or a fine." Better yet, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you have to guy a gun from Smith & Wesson." If you don't like the gun example, what if the government said, "Hey, all of you to go buy a car from GM every 5 years or face fines." Do you see the problem yet? Where in the bill does the government force you to buy private health insurance? So wait, why are you even arguing about this bill when you don't even know that this provision is in there? The question was rhetorical. I know that the provision is not in there http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/judge_rules_health-insurance_m.htmlTry again, scooter. And 14 other similar challenges were dismissed by other federal judges. Let me reiterate:You claim that this bill FORCES people to buy PRIVATE health insurance. There is no such provision. How are you missing the fact that the federal judge was ruling on the precise provision that you claim does not exist?
The provision states that citizens must be covered under health insurance. It does not in anyway state that citizens must buy private health insurance as you so implied.
The ruling is completely political. I don't see how the mandate in any way exceeds the power of Congress of regulate commerce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
