Hey part to me. Let the heat die a little before SC judges rule on it. I mean I know they are all so impartial and not prone to the political pressure of the day, but just to be safe...
It's not necessary to repeatedly tell us how silly and hyperbolic you think some arguments are, we know how you feel. But could you explain why?
This is why it should just be a standard public service. The ERs have to treat everyone, so you subsidize everyone who doesn't pay anything. You already are paying taxes to cover the very poor, will be soon subsidizing premiums for the working class, and continue to subsidize the unhealthy members of your insurance pool.
Sure, I'll tell you why: There is absolutely nothing remotely relevant or parallel between trying to resolve an inherently inefficient, regulated market like health care, by adopting a new regulatory regime, land Stalin sending his political opponents to the Gulag in the 1930's. ****ing zero, to be precise...to respond otherwise is complete nonsense. It's the equivlanet of a LOLRUS bukkit picture; The difference of course, is that the LOLRUS bucket picture is inherently, intentionally and unabashedly nonsensical; get-a-brain morans in this context, however, don't realize the stupidity of the things they say, and actually believe them. Now that that's out of the way, is there anything else you need me to explain for you? Like why you shouldn't stare at the sun during a solar eclipse, why intercontinental Zeppelin transport is a shady idea, or why you should be dubious of the hot girl with an adam's apple who is up in your business? let me kno.
Exactly, we should have single payer. If the insurance pool was everyone in the country, we would have the lowest possible per capita cost. This is possible and is called single payer.
Not even that. You are under no obligation to buy auto insurance at ALL. You merely must prove you are able to be financially liable should you cause damage or harm to other motorists or property. A rich person does not need to buy auto insurance, he merely needs a statement of financial ability to cover the same costs that an insurance company typically would. We buy auto insurance because it is much much cheaper than having to be rich to be able to drive. There is no comparison at ALL to what the feds tried to do with obamacare.
LOL, there's absolutely no difference between requiring somebody to buy something and requiring somebody to keep massive amounts of money in the bank. The lattter imposes even more costs on the individual. Terrible counterexample for you. There's also no economic difference between making somebody pay a tax penalty for not having health insurance and giving somebody a tax credit or deduction for owning a home, having a child, getting married....etc etc etc.. None.
for the lawyers among us Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling Legal experts are attacking Judge Henry Hudson's decision on the merits, citing an elementary logical flaw at the heart of his opinion. And that has conservative scholars -- even ones sympathetic to the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional -- prepared to see Hudson's decision thrown out.
Maybe we should just allow ERs to start turning away people with life threatening conditions unless they can prove upfront that they can pay. Perhaps once the anti-HCR people start seeing people they know die from inability to pay (and lack of federally subsidized ERs to save them anyway), they will start singing a different tune.
Not exactly. Insurance has generally been a group of private individuals pooling resources to pay for common problems. Socialism generally refers to an economic form of government. You can call him a commune loving hippie, but not a socialist.
Whether you can afford it or not, right? The elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions and the like are great, but there is nothing in the law to control how much these policies will cost. This concerns me greatly as the insurance companies will certainly not decrease premiums for the increase in coverage. Oh well...at least Uncle Sam will get an extra $3,000 from the poor guy that can afford it the least.
Le Sigh. The universal mandate IS a cost control provision, rather than a nefarious commnist mind control device. This is the type of message that's pretty much impossible to get people to think rationally about, and why solving complex problems is so difficult, and how we end up with tax cuts and status quo on any hard problem, rather than a grown up solution.
This whole point is moot. There already IS precedent for the government requiring private individuals to purchase a commercial product under the Interstate Commerce: Wickard v. Filburn. So please, enough of the "we can't force people to buy insurance" BS. The TPM article previously quoted points out how the judge essentially nullified the Necessary and Proper clause, but even without the Necessary and Proper clause the individual mandate can still fall under regulation of Interstate Commerce in the sense that the individual's purchase decision has a direct effect on healthcare costs nationally. This ruling will most certainly be overturned in the Supreme Court.
<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SDf5_Thqsk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6SDf5_Thqsk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>
The universal mandate (potentially) reduces per capita costs, not total cost. The costs are rising, they are just spread over more people. In fact, the more costs are spread, the less incentive there is to reduce them. We don't care what something costs when a third party is paying.
This isn't an indictment of the universal mandate, this is a criticism of any insurance arrangement in which other parties bear costs, which is basically the definition of insurance. And one that has been overcome for hundreds of years.
Which is exactly what the mandate is designed to do, force other parties into the pool to assume costs. When that isn't enough (which it won't be since overall costs keep rising), raise premiums. And once you put a cap on premiums, the next step is shortages and rationed care, or outright denial of care. Of course, there is an alternative, the auto insurance model. Pay out of pocket for routine maintenance (care). Insurance for catastrophic care, with premiums commensurate with risk. Remove any incentive for insurance to be tied to an employer. If you want to give people a voucher or tax credit to buy personal insurance, that's still preferable to single payer. No rules mandating the content of any plan. No rules restricting what plans can be purchased and where. The airwaves should be flooded with health insurance companies competing for our business, like we see with Geico/Progressive/State Farm/All State/Esurance. You know who gets all those adverts now? Business owners. There is no rational reason that health insurance is tied to employment, other than government interference.
