[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by SATX John Unintended consequences of politicians dealing with the market.

There seems to be a suggestion here that the health market could regulate itself without political intervention. Nothing could be further from the truth!

[Brit3964]

Originally Posted by fatbrit There seems to be a suggestion here that the health market could regulate itself without political intervention. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Absolutely. If it were the case it would have done so years ago.

[frrussre]

Originally Posted by fatbrit There seems to be a suggestion here that the health market could regulate itself without political intervention. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Right on the money.

Frank R.

[rallybug]

According to this study by the Urban Institute (a non-partisan think tank), only about 7.3 million Americans (or 2%) are not offered any assistance under the PPACA (or do not already have insurance), and would thus face the penalties if they don't obtain coverage.

[Brit3964]

Originally Posted by rallybug According to this study by the Urban Institute (a non-partisan think tank), only about 7.3 million Americans (or 2%) are not offered any assistance under the PPACA (or do not already have insurance), and would thus face the penalties if they don't obtain coverage.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy Like somebody who is already covered and not subject to the penalty would voluntarily drop that cover just to say they have the freedom to not have insurance

[oxonlad]

Thankfully in the US we have checks/balances. The Commerce Clause is the most-cited law/precedent in this mandate. The question is - does the government have the right to demand that someone purchase a good/service that another citizen provides. That is, if the government says "you must" purchase something - doesn't that mean it also requires someone to - at the risk of a fine or punishment - dispense with that.

As we saw in oral arguments today, the SCOTUS seems to be properly examining the future ramifications of this law, and it will most likely be struck down (the individual mandate).

Comparisons to car insurance are wrong. You only need to buy car insurance IF you intend to drive you car on public roads. You'll need to purchase insurance IF you're born. Once again, there is no decision post-birth in this case.

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by moadikum As we saw in oral arguments today, the SCOTUS seems to be properly examining the future ramifications of this law, and it will most likely be struck down (the individual mandate). Comparisons to car insurance are wrong. You only need to buy car insurance IF you intend to drive you car on public roads. You'll need to purchase insurance IF you're born. Once again, there is no decision post-birth in this case.

Sure there's a decision: the decision not to buy insurance in the knowledge that they can continue to use the emergency room for their healthcare. It's the "free-loader" issue that justifies the mandate imo, although I've felt since the law was passed that 5 Supreme Court justices would disagree with me.

[oxonlad]

No - the choice is whether those emergency rooms decide to cover the patient (which they probably will). However, those free services can easily be written off on their taxes. The increase in costs for health insurance are not due to those emergency room visits (as is often cited). Instead, we like using new, expensive treatments - and we're all living longer.

[Sally Redux]

Originally Posted by moadikum However, those free services can easily be written off on their taxes.

So the taxpayer picks up the bill in the end.

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by moadikum No - the choice is whether those emergency rooms decide to cover the patient (which they probably will).

No, they are _required by law_ to at least medically stabilize the patient.

Originally Posted by moadikum However, those free services can easily be written off on their taxes.

Or by increasing their charges for people who can pay. And of course a tax writeoff is indirectly paid for by the rest of us.

Originally Posted by moadikum The increase in costs for health insurance are not due to those emergency room visits (as is often cited). Instead, we like using new, expensive treatments - and we're all living longer.

Over $100bn in health services isn't paid for each year. The "free-loader" problem may not be the biggest factor in the US's healthcare access mess, but it's certainly an issue.

[oxonlad]

I don't care about the costs - that really isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The question is - does the government have the right to coercively force the purchasing of any good or service from the public market. I think as the court argued today, the answer is most likely going to be "No".

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by moadikum I don't care about the costs - that really isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The question is - does the government have the right to coercively force the purchasing of any good or service from the public market. I think as the court argued today, the answer is most likely going to be "No".

By a 5-4 vote, I suspect.

The government is requiring people participating in the healthcare market (i.e. everyone, given that everyone has access to emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay) to take out insurance. Would you prefer a system where people who did not wish to have insurance were required to sign an affidavit that they will be left to die if they could not pay for any emergency room treatment they might require?

[frrussre]

Originally Posted by moadikum I don't care about the costs - that really isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. The question is - does the government have the right to coercively force the purchasing of any good or service from the public market. I think as the court argued today, the answer is most likely going to be "No".

The government, forces us to pay for the Health care insurance for their employees, Senators, Congressman, Federal Judges, Supreme Court Judges (The very same gang, they are deciding if others should get it), Presidents etcetctetc. They force us to pay Fed taxes, lots of people don't want to pay, but are forced.

Maybe they should force us to buy, health care insurance from them. Just came up with a great name, lets call it NHS.

I hear tell it works really well, in all of the first world & beyond.

"Will the Government be able to make us buy Broccoli" (Close enough for Government work ), what a stupid dumb arse thing to say.

Frank R.

[frrussre]

Health care is a right, from pre birth to death. ITS NOT A#$%^&**&^%$ PRIVELIDGE.

If there is a cure, there is a cure for all.

A Mercedes, a mansion & a private Jet plane, they are privileges.


Frank R.

[ian-mstm]

Originally Posted by frrussre Health care is a right, from pre birth to death. ITS NOT A#$%^&**&^%$ PRIVELIDGE.

According to SCOTUS, a person doesn't come into existence until birth... so health care pre-birth is irrelevant when discussing rights. A non-person has no rights... and I don't have a problem with that position.

BTW, I disagree with your statement above.

Ian