Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

This is opinion of course, but at some point the high wage employers are going to get sick and tired of increased premiums because hospitals and doctors cost-shift, transferring the costs to them, of taking care of Wal*Mart's employees since to keep costs down low wage employers like Wal*Mart offer no or minimal coverage.

At that point, single-payer is going to be sounding pretty good to those employers and their employees.

Really?! My wife works part time for Wal-Mart and pays 22.00 dollars a month for heath insurance. She also puts monies into a 401k, and stock purchase.
Where do u get ur info from?

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

I would like to go to a single-payer system in steps. I would like the qualifying age for Medicare to gradually come down over, say, 12 years, to age 21. At the same time I would like any child born after some arbitrary date, say 9 years ago, would also have a Medicare card.

Children are already covered if you qualify in every state. Through medicaid and/or CHIP. A great program for our nations children and paid for by a tax on cigarettes which I heartily approve of.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Children are already covered if you qualify in every state. Through medicaid and/or CHIP. A great program for our nations children and paid for by a tax on cigarettes which I heartily approve of.

What does "if you qualify" mean? Why not all children?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Oh, just simply "opt out."

That sounds nice.

Now, how do you put that into practice?

That's up to the service providers.

Do you have any idea the cost in life and misery that would cause?

Yeah, not much. These nightmare scenarios are scare tactics. In any case, it would be the people who choose to opt out in a bind, not you. Why not just mind your own business, and let other people worry about theirs?

I don't buy the theatrics, and I don't appreciate the lame attempts to characterize my position as social darwinism. Generosity and decency don't need to be mandated by law - can't be, actually. Attempts to do so turn us into herd animals. That may be the goal of many who fancy themselves as "herders" rather than "herdees", but I'm not interesting in promoting such a society.

Originally Posted by dblack

That's up to the service providers.



Yeah, not much. These nightmare scenarios are scare tactics. In any case, it would be the people who choose to opt out in a bind, not you. Why not just mind your own business, and let other people worry about theirs?

I don't buy the theatrics, and I don't appreciate the lame attempts to characterize my position as social darwinism. Generosity and decency don't need to be mandated by law - can't be, actually. Attempts to do so turn us into herd animals. That may be the goal of many who fancy themselves as "herders" rather than "herdees", but I'm not interesting in promoting such a society.

End tithing ,and christian ministry attempts at compassion!

Originally Posted by wooyarn

The Individual mandate seem to be one of the biggest problems that people have with this.

There's a simple solution, If people don't want insurance they shouldn't have too have it. However if for some reason they need to be rushed to the ER, accident, heart attack etc... The ER doctors and nurses can stabilize them, then if further treatment is needed and they don't have insurance they will need to come up with cash or some other way to pay for treatment.

Absolutely. But this lets people decide for themselves, which serves neither the interests of the authoritarian state, nor corporate profits.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

While I agree in spirit, its worth pointing out that under the old system everyone who was responsible was also paying for the irresponsible. The new system is no different in that regard except the irresponsible now get fined.

No, this isn't true. Not having insurance isn't irresponsible. Not paying your bills is. Conflating the two is the con-game that the insurance lobby is selling. Don't buy it.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

What does "if you qualify" mean? Why not all children?

there is a level where children of rich people do not qualify, beacuse the program is for those that re in need.

Originally Posted by dblack

No, this isn't true. Not having insurance isn't irresponsible. Not paying your bills is. Conflating the two is the con-game that the insurance lobby is selling. Don't buy it.

Tell that to the cop giving u a ticket for no proof of insurance,(unless you are worth alot of monies) or a bank that notices you have no home owners insurance when you have a mortgage with them. I hear no-one complaing of the required insurance laws we have now.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Tell that to the cop giving u a ticket for no proof of insurance,(unless you are worth alot of monies) or a bank that notices you have no home owners insurance when you have a mortgage with them. I hear no-one complaing of the required insurance laws we have now.

Ok - first off, with a car, the state does not require insurance, but rather, financial responsibility. If you can cough up certain amount of cash on demand for an accident, you do not have to have insurance.

Regardless, what the state is doing is requiring you to assume financial responsibility, not for YOUR car, but for anyone you may hit. Notice, if you own the car, you can carry liability only.

Of course, if the car never sees public roads, you're not legally obligated to ensure it.

In the case of a bank, you may also notice that is a company requiring you to ensure property YOU DO NOT OWN.

Are you starting to make the connection yet?

Last but not least, in the case of car insurance, that is a state issue - not a federal government issue.

The situations you mentioned are not comparable to requiring one purchase health insurance simply because one is alive.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Children are already covered if you qualify in every state. Through medicaid and/or CHIP. A great program for our nations children and paid for by a tax on cigarettes which I heartily approve of.

And of which I strenuously disagree. You're taxing the users of a legal product that some people do not like and requiring them to pay for the health care needs of somebody else's busted condom.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Ok - first off, with a car, the state does not require insurance, but rather, financial responsibility. If you can cough up certain amount of cash on demand for an accident, you do not have to have insurance.

Regardless, what the state is doing is requiring you to assume financial responsibility, not for YOUR car, but for anyone you may hit. Notice, if you own the car, you can carry liability only.

Of course, if the car never sees public roads, you're not legally obligated to ensure it.

In the case of a bank, you may also notice that is a company requiring you to ensure property YOU DO NOT OWN.

Are you starting to make the connection yet?

Last but not least, in the case of car insurance, that is a state issue - not a federal government issue.

The situations you mentioned are not comparable to requiring one purchase health insurance simply because one is alive.

How ia OKC? I lived there 24 years.
You do not have to have the mandated insurance from the gov. you may provide other avenues of exemption.

Originally Posted by dblack

Absolutely. But this lets people decide for themselves, which serves neither the interests of the authoritarian state, nor corporate profits.

This serves no purpose for a society. "Letting people decide for themselves" just doesn't work.

Hey, I decided 75 mph through a school zone is OK. Let the kids decide for themselves if they want to cross the street.

Hey, I decided I am going to see how far and how fast I can go with only two wheel nuts per tire!

Hey, Johnny has chicken pox. So what. He's going to school. What do I care if the other kids catch it.