SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by AGDee

You brought up the argument and then told others that the same argument didn't apply. I'm confused. The big difference between your analogy and health insurance is that there is nobody in this country who does not ever use the health care system. Nobody. Not a soul. Everybody needs a doctor at some point in their life.

Pay the doctor/hospitals directly. Self insure. Fee for service.

This new entitlement is a big black hole for us to throw our collective money into. Watch for all the new taxes we will all pay to support this.

Why does a person have to buy insurance if he/she doesn't need it or want it? Why must I be coerced into buying a product I may not want and if I don't buy it I will be taxed for not buying it?

The reason for the above is that the Federal Government tells me I have to or else. I see this as overreaching and as a loss of freedom.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I thought Scalia's justification of his position in this case vs. Gonzales v. Raich was pretty indefensible.

We can regulate marijuana with the commerce clause because there's no other way to regulate marijuana, but we can't with healthcare because there are other ways to regulate healthcare.

Kind of inventive, but totally made up.

Scalia?! Made up?!!

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Pay the doctor/hospitals directly. Self insure. Fee for service.

This new entitlement is a big black hole for us to throw our collective money into. Watch for all the new taxes we will all pay to support this.

Why does a person have to buy insurance if he/she doesn't need it or want it? Why must I be coerced into buying a product I may not want and if I don't buy it I will be taxed for not buying it?

A person doesn't have to buy insurance. But if a person chooses not to buy it, they have to pay the penalty/tax because experience shows that the bolded rarely happens, doesn't work, and drives up the cost of health care for everyone else. A person's choice not to buy has an impact on me, on everyone else who is insured, on the government and on the economy.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Pay the doctor/hospitals directly. Self insure. Fee for service.

And those who can't afford treatment are left to die?

[IUHoosiergirl88]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I thought Scalia's justification of his position in this case vs. Gonzales v. Raich was pretty indefensible.

We can regulate marijuana with the commerce clause because there's no other way to regulate marijuana, but we can't with healthcare because there are other ways to regulate healthcare.

Kind of inventive, but totally made up.

As Steven Colbert said, "Justice Antonin Scalia revealed that the whole time, he's just been four raccoons in a black garbage bag"

(on a side note, if you haven't seen Steven Colbert ripping Richard Mourdock of IN and announcing his alternate decisions...you should)

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Scalia?! Made up?!!

A person doesn't have to buy insurance. But if a person chooses not to buy it, they have to pay the penalty/tax because experience shows that the bolded rarely happens, doesn't work, and drives up the cost of health care for everyone else. A person's choice not to buy has an impact on me, on everyone else who is insured, on the government and on the economy.

Exactly. You should have been an attorney because you lay out arguments very well.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Pay the doctor/hospitals directly. Self insure. Fee for service.

None of which are viable in the slightest as a "global" policy (ie fitting all Americans).

Why does a person have to buy insurance if he/she doesn't need it or want it?

It's very simple:

1 - We've decided that all people are entitled to basic health care - that is to say, we've decided against throwing people out on the streets. They get served, because hey, humanity.

2 - That means (whether you 'want' it or not) every person is already covered. Formalizing the payment portion should actually APPEAL to Conservatives (see? Nobody gets a free ride!) ...

Why must I be coerced into buying a product I may not want and if I don't buy it I will be taxed for not buying it?

You buy a shitload of products you probably don't want through the government - that's actually one of the purposes of the government. Why does health care cause a flare-up about individual freedoms, when (say) oil subsidies get nothing related (when they're 99% the same thing)?

The reason for the above is that the Federal Government tells me I have to or else. I see this as overreaching and as a loss of freedom.

You also have to drive on the correct side of the road, or else.

"You will receive treatment, and so pay your part, or else!" is so straight forward and impossible to argue against that it boggles me to see the hand-wringing.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Pay the doctor/hospitals directly. Self insure. Fee for service.

This new entitlement is a big black hole for us to throw our collective money into. Watch for all the new taxes we will all pay to support this.

Why does a person have to buy insurance if he/she doesn't need it or want it? Why must I be coerced into buying a product I may not want and if I don't buy it I will be taxed for not buying it?

The reason for the above is that the Federal Government tells me I have to or else. I see this as overreaching and as a loss of freedom.

Technically, you're not being forced to buy health insurance; you have the option of paying a tax instead.

YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund the military
YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund corn-growing subsidies.
YOU are forced to pay taxes that fund the construction and maintenance of transit projects you will never use or be near.
YOU are forced to pay taxes for a lot of projects that are much less important to you and to this nation than health coverage is.

Basically, we (the public, the legislature, and SCOTUS) have decided that having everyone pay for some kind of basic healthcare is a benefit to the whole nation. Having everyone pay into the system means that the average premium costs will be lower, thus making healthcare more affordable and attainable for more people.

This decision is not really any kind of federal government overreach. It's pretty much right in line with what the Fed does every day.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Technically, you're not being forced to buy health insurance; you have the option of paying a tax instead.

YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund the military
YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund corn-growing subsidies.
YOU are forced to pay taxes that fund the construction and maintenance of transit projects you will never use or be near.
YOU are forced to pay taxes for a lot of projects that are much less important to you and to this nation than health coverage is.

Basically, we (the public, the legislature, and SCOTUS) have decided that having everyone pay for some kind of basic healthcare is a benefit to the whole nation. Having everyone pay into the system means that the average premium costs will be lower, thus making healthcare more affordable and attainable for more people.

This decision is not really any kind of federal government overreach. It's pretty much right in line with what the Fed does every day.

Very well said.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Technically, you're not being forced to buy health insurance; you have the option of paying a tax instead.

YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund the military
YOU are forced to pay taxes to fund corn-growing subsidies.
YOU are forced to pay taxes that fund the construction and maintenance of transit projects you will never use or be near.
YOU are forced to pay taxes for a lot of projects that are much less important to you and to this nation than health coverage is.

Basically, we (the public, the legislature, and SCOTUS) have decided that having everyone pay for some kind of basic healthcare is a benefit to the whole nation. Having everyone pay into the system means that the average premium costs will be lower, thus making healthcare more affordable and attainable for more people.

This decision is not really any kind of federal government overreach. It's pretty much right in line with what the Fed does every day.

Can you send this e-mail to the Obama administration? As professional political strategists they have done a monumentally poor job of framing (and thus successfully advancing) this issue since they took it up -- 2009.

Even now, the Supreme Court hadn't even left town and Repbulicans are framing it as "a tax, a tax, a tax." As political strategy, you could say they're winning, but then you realize that most people have health insurance and aren't subject to this, and it's really only firing up the Rep base to raise money.

[Kevin]

I think/hope the Democrats are saving their money for September/October/November. In terms of fundraising, Obama is at a huge disadvantage with the PACs.