Why the individual mandate philosophically is right/ or wrong

[cybrsage]

Yes, I could think of a lot of transactions that would not be subject to such regulation. You could very well live your entire life without riding the bus. There exists nearly no American that will live their life without interacting with the health care system.

The idea that choosing not to participate in the health insurance industry is 'non participation' is simply a fantasy. It's a total joke, and you know it.

I assume you say it is acceptable for the fed gov to force everyone in the country to buy a monthly bus pass every month or pay a fine.

Is this correct? You support the fed gov doing this?

 

[Exterous]

Everyone who drives in my State car insurance is mandatory and I don't see collective outrage of citizens protesting in the streets over it.

But the state/federal government does not force you to drive. Its a small but important distinction as it pertains to our freedoms. If having to buy car insurance really really bothered you there are steps you can take to avoid buying it - you have the freedom to make that choice in your life.

If buying health insurance really really bothers you - the only thing you can do to avoid it is to end your life.

We are in debt because we spend 40% of the entire world's military budget while having 4% of the world's population and are surrounded by 2 oceans and 2 peaceful countries.

If you bothered to look at the federal budget you would know that that is only part of the reason

 

[fskimospy]

But people are affected by public transportation in many ways. By using public transportation in congested cities the amount of pollutants would be reduced. That would alleviate related health care problems and since everyone participates in that it would be in the public interest to have people use it. Obviously no one can compel another to ride the bus, however it seems only right that those who do not pay a tax which would expand the opportunity to do so. You cannot shirk your responsibility.

That analogy doesn't work at all. My argument is not about what is in the public interest, it is that everyone in America eventually 'rides the bus'. Those who claim they won't ever use the health care system are either naive or lying.

(oh, and by the way exactly what you're saying already exists in America through federal subsidies to mass transportation)

 

[dank69]

Yes, I could think of a lot of transactions that would not be subject to such regulation. You could very well live your entire life without riding the bus. There exists nearly no American that will live their life without interacting with the health care system.

The idea that choosing not to participate in the health insurance industry is 'non participation' is simply a fantasy. It's a total joke, and you know it.

I assume you say it is acceptable for the fed gov to force everyone in the country to buy a monthly bus pass every month or pay a fine.

Is this correct? You support the fed gov doing this?

Why would you assume he would say the exact opposite of what he just said?

 

[shadow9d9]

But the state/federal government does not force you to drive. Its a small but important distinction as it pertains to our freedoms. If having to buy car insurance really really bothered you there are steps you can take to avoid buying it - you have the freedom to make that choice in your life.

If buying health insurance really really bothers you - the only thing you can do to avoid it is to end your life.



If you bothered to look at the federal budget you would know that that is only part of the reason

1 trillion a year for military is hardly just "part" of the problem.

 

[shadow9d9]

A lot of younger people were choosing not to purchase health care at $800.00 a month and save a little money right after getting out of college. All of those people will now be saddled with being forced to buy healthcare while trying to pay back their college debt. The cost of the health care could be the difference between starving and having dinner.

Health insurance for me at 29 years old is less than 300 a month. It is more like 150-200 a month out of college.

 

[shadow9d9]

Who signed it into law, happily doing it?

If you wanted a better bill you should have supported having the republicans actually participate more in the formation of the bill instead of refusing because it was headed by democrats(using a republican idea).

A tiny step in the right direction is better than none. No pre-existing conditions alone makes the bill worth it.

 

[fskimospy]

Health insurance for me at 29 years old is less than 300 a month. It is more like 150-200 a month out of college.

Not to mention the fact that federal subsidies exist for health care. If you are having to choose between health care and starvation, it's quite likely you qualify for them.

 

[Exterous]

1 trillion a year for military is hardly just "part" of the problem.

So - are you just throwing numbers out there without context? Considering that Dept Health and SS comprise almost $2 trillion and the total 2012 budget was 3.7 trillion (Which means defense was less than 30% of the entire budget) then yes - it is just part of the issue

Edit: Actually lets explore your idiotic claim further. You claim that we spend so much on defense is THE reason we are in debt:

We are in debt because we spend 40% of the entire world's military budget while having 4% of the world's population and are surrounded by 2 oceans and 2 peaceful countries.

So - lets look at the last 3 years. In the last 3 years the debt has increased by $4.7 trillion dollars. Now - if we take your defense spending as fact and we spent an average of $1 trillion on defense over the last three years taht gives us $3 trillion dollars.

Ok. Now if we were to cut EVERYTHING - every last penny from the defense budget over those last three years. We have now saved $3 trillion dollars (ignoring possible side effects of adding hundreds of thousands of unemployed and any potential negative effects that removing your entire military might have)

Awesome! We have now removed the entire reason we were in debt! Wait a second - we still have $1.7 trillion* in debt? How could that happen - we removed THE reason we were in debt.

Oh wait - thats because military spending is only PART of the reason

(Still leaves plenty of wiggle room if you don't like the numbers I used)

 

[sactoking]

Yes, I could think of a lot of transactions that would not be subject to such regulation. You could very well live your entire life without riding the bus. There exists nearly no American that will live their life without interacting with the health care system.

The idea that choosing not to participate in the health insurance industry is 'non participation' is simply a fantasy. It's a total joke, and you know it.

That's where the argument of the proponents of the individual mandate falls apart: you equate participation in health care with a need for health insurance. Health insurance != health care yet the terms are often used interchangeably in the context of the ACA.

I can choose to self-insure my health care cost risks and avoid the health insurance market while not avoiding the health care market. In fact, that's what every single American with a HDHP does.

You focus too literally on "riding the bus" as an example and miss that nobody can live their entire lives with avoiding the transportation industry (or so few can as to be completely analogous to those who avoid health care). There's nothing stopping Congress and/or the President from extending the logic in the ACA to transportation and mandating that all Americans buy into a motor pool arrangement which guarantees access to transportation should the person need to travel a distance greater than, say, 5 miles.

The ass-backwards logic of the ACA that health insurance = health care and non-participation = participation allows unbounded applications of similar ass-backwards logic to everything.

 

[Exterous]

Does anyone have any information on the coverage and cost of the health care the uninsured are required to buy under this?

 

[fskimospy]

That's where the argument of the proponents of the individual mandate falls apart: you equate participation in health care with a need for health insurance. Health insurance != health care yet the terms are often used interchangeably in the context of the ACA.

I can choose to self-insure my health care cost risks and avoid the health insurance market while not avoiding the health care market. In fact, that's what every single American with a HDHP does.

You focus too literally on "riding the bus" as an example and miss that nobody can live their entire lives with avoiding the transportation industry (or so few can as to be completely analogous to those who avoid health care). There's nothing stopping Congress and/or the President from extending the logic in the ACA to transportation and mandating that all Americans buy into a motor pool arrangement which guarantees access to transportation should the person need to travel a distance greater than, say, 5 miles.

The ass-backwards logic of the ACA that health insurance = health care and non-participation = participation allows unbounded applications of similar ass-backwards logic to everything.

You are not avoiding the health insurance market with a high deductible plan. It is interesting that you are claiming by purchasing a high deductible insurance policy that you are not participating in the insurance industry.

Furthermore, you are confused about my point. The federal government has the right to regulate health care in the US through the commerce clause, and the means by which it is doing so is through the health insurance industry. Furthermore, they are not regulating non-activity. As I said before, just because someone wants to claim they aren't participating doesn't make them not naive or a liar for claiming so. It's not a question of whether or not this is the best way to do it, simply if it's constitutionally permissible for them to do so. The vast majority of legal experts believe that it is. (and I do mean vast majority, the ABA polled legal experts and more than 85% agreed that it is constitutional)

So in short, the ACA is simply not based on what you think it's based on.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are not avoiding the health insurance market with a high deductible plan. It is interesting that you are claiming by purchasing a high deductible insurance policy that you are not participating in the insurance industry.

Furthermore, you are confused about my point. The federal government has the right to regulate health care in the US through the commerce clause, and the means by which it is doing so is through the health insurance industry. Furthermore, they are not regulating non-activity. As I said before, just because someone wants to claim they aren't participating doesn't make them not naive or a liar for claiming so. It's not a question of whether or not this is the best way to do it, simply if it's constitutionally permissible for them to do so. The vast majority of legal experts believe that it is. (and I do mean vast majority, the ABA polled legal experts and more than 85% agreed that it is constitutional)

So in short, the ACA is simply not based on what you think it's based on.

Anything can be controlled by the Commerce Clause if it has a dollar value attached to it. That's not what's proposed. It's the federal government requiring that on pain of punishment a private person must buy a product from a private company. You have yet to demonstrate that there are any protections against this being used for whatever the government deems is "good".

You can respond with "they wouldn't do that", but you cannot say that the government cannot tax you for not carrying a firearm.

BTW, most people are against this, but I suspect what the people want is inconsequential. This will most likely be forced down their throats because it can be. Who can stand against it?

 

[OutHouse]

If the fed gov can tell you that you must engage in private commerce

the gov alredy does this with car insurance. you have to have buy it to drive. and yes many many many people HAVE to drive

 

[OutHouse]

im all for universal health care. bring it on we need it and our country will be a whole lot better with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Anything can be controlled by the Commerce Clause if it has a dollar value attached to it. That's not what's proposed. It's the federal government requiring that on pain of punishment a private person must buy a product from a private company. You have yet to demonstrate that there are any protections against this being used for whatever the government deems is "good".

You can respond with "they wouldn't do that", but you cannot say that the government cannot tax you for not carrying a firearm.

BTW, most people are against this, but I suspect what the people want is inconsequential. This will most likely be forced down their throats because it can be. Who can stand against it?

First of all, I don't have to demonstrate anything.

Second of all, my entire point was that the federal government has already had far, far greater coercive power to achieve the exact same ends, so I find the hand-wringing over 'tyranny' to be poorly informed at best, and downright duplicitous at worst.

 

[First]

The argument that it's a slippery slope is nonsense since a major law would have to be passed by Congress as SCOTUS generally errs on the side of legislative authority vs. making their own astounding law-altering precedents. And considering Congress members are elected by American citizens, it's ultimately up to a plurality of people to decide whether citizens should be forced to buy private products. It already happens with car insurance; it's going to happen with health insurance.

Just get used to it, it's what Americans voted for and it's constitutional.

 

[homercles337]

Who signed it into law, happily doing it?

Do you even have the faintest idea how government works? Its called concession and compromise. How about history? Do you know anything about history? The mandate has been a right-wing idea for decades. Its a vocal, ideological, and perfectly consistent policy of conservatives. So Obama integrates ideas of conservatives and he gets railed by conservatives for it...typical of the idiots.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

First of all, I don't have to demonstrate anything.

Second of all, my entire point was that the federal government has already had far, far greater coercive power to achieve the exact same ends, so I find the hand-wringing over 'tyranny' to be poorly informed at best, and downright duplicitous at worst.

The first point holds then.

Second is that the federal government has slipped it's leash and we belong to it. To say otherwise would be dishonest. Some people are comfortable with that situation. I happen to not be one of them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The argument that it's a slippery slope is nonsense since a major law would have to be passed by Congress as SCOTUS generally errs on the side of legislative authority vs. making their own astounding law-altering precedents. And considering Congress members are elected by American citizens, it's ultimately up to a plurality of people to decide whether citizens should be forced to buy private products. It already happens with car insurance; it's going to happen with health insurance.

Just get used to it, it's what Americans voted for and it's constitutional.

So anything that a current crop of politicians is does is blessed by the plurality of the people before they even know what may be done. Well that justifies most everything done where an election was held. Thanks for sharing.

 

[fskimospy]

The first point holds then.

Second is that the federal government has slipped it's leash and we belong to it. To say otherwise would be dishonest. Some people are comfortable with that situation. I happen to not be one of them.

The first point is only to notify you that such a requirement has nothing to do with my argument.

The second is simply hand wringing for no purpose. The government hasn't suddenly 'slipped its leash'. The fact that it would have such power dates back at a minimum almost a century now. You may not have realized it before, but it's always been there. I have no idea why finally tyranny has come to our shores because the federal government decided to do the same sort of thing it has always done, but in a less coercive manner than usual.

 

[xBiffx]

the gov alredy does this with car insurance. you have to have buy it to drive. and yes many many many people HAVE to drive

Probably best for you to go back to paying attention to what's going on with Kim Kardashian. This topic has already been discussed ad nauseum. There is a very important subtle difference between the two types of insurance. Please read.

 

[OutHouse]

Probably best for you to go back to paying attention to what's going on with Kim Kardashian. This topic has already been discussed ad nauseum. There is a very important subtle difference between the two types of insurance. Please read.

i did read and i posted. get over yourself you pompous tool.

 

[xBiffx]

i did read and i posted. get over yourself you pompous tool.

Um, ok. Why post something that has been said 20 times before without having anything new to add? Are you like 12?

 

[OutHouse]

Um, ok. Why post something that has been said 20 times before without having anything new to add? Are you like 12?

i did add more to it cant you read???

i also read all of your idiotic postings, its clear you are inept at this topic.