Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[Oddball]

Is it necessary and proper for the government to be involved in the private lives of every citizen?

No.

Maybe not, and that's a valid argument. But (just like the Patriot Act - supported by both left and right), are Americans willing to give up a portion of their personal freedoms in the name of protection?

Nobody gave them up...They were taken by power lusting despots, who believe that they know what's in your best interests better than you do.

But I suppose as long as you actually enjoy being a good little subject, it's all good.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use?

You won't use many things your taxes pay for.

next

The insurance mandate is not a tax.

My taxes pay for the government.

Twice the fail for the price of none.

Next.

It isn't a tax, and revenue enhancing (Ronald Reagan conservative positions) is not taxes either

 

[KevinWestern]

But I suppose as long as you actually enjoy being a good little subject, it's all good.

Going to bed. Gotta work and make money tomorrow.

 

[Oddball]

Another grade school non sequitur.

Fire departments are not only local, they're a collectivized way to do that which it would not be illegal, immoral or fattening to do individually....That being protect your home when the neighbor's is on fire.

You socialists really need to get some new and relevant analogies.

Oddball - I think it's a perfectly fine analogy. The fire department is a service that protects us from fire, just as healthcare protects us from cancer. Fire fighters are even trained healthcare professionals! Public healthcare can also be localized too - as in State run.

Also, why am I automatically a "socialist" just because my view on a single, highly debatable area - Public Healthcare? I completely understand the value of private institutions when it comes to other areas of our economy, but folks like you disregard and label people anyways the most simple, extreme thing you can think of. It's a bit silly, don't you think?

No, it's not a perfectly fine analogy....Other than preventing an existing fire from spreading to other homes and businesses, he fire department doesn't protect anyone from anything...Like the cops, they show up after the event.

And if you don't like being identified as a socialist, quit parroting their lame-brained and unanalytical yapping points....Maybe use your head for something other than a hat rack.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe most every single argument against the health care mandate is politics

The health care mandate : SCOTUSblog

The attack on the health care mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is pure politics. In large part I think the political attack is quite justified. But the situation created by the decisions of two district courts and the drumbeat of arguments about the activity/inactivity distinction, capped by the hyperbolic claim that if the government can make us buy health insurance then “we are no longer citizens; we are subjects,” frightens me. The constitutional arguments against the mandate are utterly without merit.

Chief Justice Marshall at the beginning of the Republic made clear that the commerce power is the power to regulate interstate commerce "“ not persons, but the commerce. It is beyond doubt "“ -except in the consistent but radical jurisprudence of Justice Thomas "“ that health insurance is commerce.

[youtube]4ZvaSrztrY8[/youtube]

 

[Oddball]

Government Mandated Healthcare in every other developed nation besides ours, whose healthcare costs as a % per GDP is less than ours, yet yield equal results.

Another brain dead taking point, spouted by brain dead socialists.

The costs are lower in the other nations because the health services are rationed...In many of those places, you cannot buy better service....Hence, the flood of Canadians purchasing services in places like Buffalo, Minneapolis and Seattle.

liar alert!

not true

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It
Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Liar alert!...Those economies are no more "capitalist" than is America's...The first tip-off was taxpayer funded PBS as the source

Socialist drips like you wouldn't know real free market capitalism if it crawled up your leg and bit your ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it possible to reduce the exposure to things that have been linked to cancer? Yes. Does that prevent cancer? No. Can cancer be prevented? Considering that cancer is simply a group of cells that manage to turn off the genetic aging trigger that kills us with old age, I kinda doubt it.

I specifically said the words, "protect people from cancer", and that's exactly what good healthcare does. Screening protects people from cancer by detecting it early and distinguishing it. Protection doesn't mean prevention. The armed forces didn't prevent the Nazis from taking over Europe, but they protected us by extinguishing the threat when it was identified.

Even early detection is not a guarantee that cancer will not kill you, therefore health care does not protect people from cancer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You won't use many things your taxes pay for.

next

The insurance mandate is not a tax.

My taxes pay for the government.

Twice the fail for the price of none.

Next.

It isn't a tax, and revenue enhancing (Ronald Reagan conservative positions) is not taxes either

Taxes fund the government, revenue enhancements fund the government, therefore revenue enhancements are taxes. The health insurance mandate funds insurance companies, not the government, therefore it is not a tax.

More fail, still nothing to show for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe most every single argument against the health care mandate is politics

The health care mandate : SCOTUSblog

The attack on the health care mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is pure politics. In large part I think the political attack is quite justified. But the situation created by the decisions of two district courts and the drumbeat of arguments about the activity/inactivity distinction, capped by the hyperbolic claim that if the government can make us buy health insurance then “we are no longer citizens; we are subjects,” frightens me. The constitutional arguments against the mandate are utterly without merit.

Chief Justice Marshall at the beginning of the Republic made clear that the commerce power is the power to regulate interstate commerce "“ not persons, but the commerce. It is beyond doubt "“ -except in the consistent but radical jurisprudence of Justice Thomas "“ that health insurance is commerce.

[youtube]4ZvaSrztrY8[/youtube]

Can you show me a single argument in favor of the mandate that is not politics?


Charles Fried is a pretentious idiot with a degree.

 

[Oddball]

Is it possible to reduce the exposure to things that have been linked to cancer? Yes. Does that prevent cancer? No. Can cancer be prevented? Considering that cancer is simply a group of cells that manage to turn off the genetic aging trigger that kills us with old age, I kinda doubt it.

I specifically said the words, "protect people from cancer", and that's exactly what good healthcare does. Screening protects people from cancer by detecting it early and distinguishing it. Protection doesn't mean prevention. The armed forces didn't prevent the Nazis from taking over Europe, but they protected us by extinguishing the threat when it was identified.

Even early detection is not a guarantee that cancer will not kill you, therefore health care does not protect people from cancer.

Not only that but only an extremely small percentage of the population will develop cancer at any given time.

So, what the socialists are (stupidly) proposing is that by screening 100% of the people (even those in the lowest risk groups) for something that may or not be a potential affliction, we're somehow going to contain costs.

If they only had a brain to share amongst them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Another brain dead taking point, spouted by brain dead socialists.

The costs are lower in the other nations because the health services are rationed...In many of those places, you cannot buy better service....Hence, the flood of Canadians purchasing services in places like Buffalo, Minneapolis and Seattle.

liar alert!

not true

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It
Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Liar alert!...Those economies are no more "capitalist" than is America's...The first tip-off was taxpayer funded PBS as the source

Socialist drips like you wouldn't know real free market capitalism if it crawled up your leg and bit your ass.

dooshbagh says what?

an attack on PBS?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The insurance mandate is not a tax.

My taxes pay for the government.

Twice the fail for the price of none.

Next.

It isn't a tax, and revenue enhancing (Ronald Reagan conservative positions) is not taxes either

Taxes fund the government, revenue enhancements fund the government, therefore revenue enhancements are taxes. The health insurance mandate funds insurance companies, not the government, therefore it is not a tax.

More fail, still nothing to show for it.

ha, ha, ha... the echo chamber of you and that Oddball Dude is hilarious.

a tax by any other name is still a tax.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe most every single argument against the health care mandate is politics

The health care mandate : SCOTUSblog

The attack on the health care mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is pure politics. In large part I think the political attack is quite justified. But the situation created by the decisions of two district courts and the drumbeat of arguments about the activity/inactivity distinction, capped by the hyperbolic claim that if the government can make us buy health insurance then “we are no longer citizens; we are subjects,” frightens me. The constitutional arguments against the mandate are utterly without merit.

Chief Justice Marshall at the beginning of the Republic made clear that the commerce power is the power to regulate interstate commerce "“ not persons, but the commerce. It is beyond doubt "“ -except in the consistent but radical jurisprudence of Justice Thomas "“ that health insurance is commerce.

[youtube]4ZvaSrztrY8[/youtube]

Can you show me a single argument in favor of the mandate that is not politics?


Charles Fried is a pretentious idiot with a degree.

the Oddball Dude attacks PBS, and you attack Prof. Fried.



tell your debate coach a refund is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It isn't a tax, and revenue enhancing (Ronald Reagan conservative positions) is not taxes either

Taxes fund the government, revenue enhancements fund the government, therefore revenue enhancements are taxes. The health insurance mandate funds insurance companies, not the government, therefore it is not a tax.

More fail, still nothing to show for it.

ha, ha, ha... the echo chamber of you and that Oddball Dude is hilarious.

a tax by any other name is still a tax.

Isn't that what I just said?

FYI, every single judge that has ruled on Obamacare has one thing in common, the mandate is not a tax. The law was specifically written to say that the mandate is not a tax, even though the IRS is responsible for making sure everyone has insurance. The judges that enthusiastically support the mandate, the ones who reluctantly say it is constitutional, the ones who think it isn't even though they aren't sure why, and the ones who outright reject the mandate all agree, it is not a tax. They have all rejected the argument put forth by the administration that, although Congress specifically said it is not a tax, it still is, because that just makes life easier.

Unanimous. Only a few pundits, lawyers that are paid to keep repeating things even if they don't believe it, and fools, are still saying that it is a tax.

Stop being a fool.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?

That's a lame-ass argument with the possible exception of Medicaid dollars. As long as contributions are paid in according to a set of rules applied equally to all and claims paid in a similar fashion, it's no more you paying for another persons health care choices than if you share the same bank and your money is 'commingled' on some balance sheet.

As I said, just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.

It is, however, me buying something I do not need. Being a man, the only forms of birth control available to me are abstinence, rythm, and condoms, none of which are covered by the insurance plan I am paying for.

Please, tell me that me paying for something does not mean I am buying it so I can make you look as stupid as Plasmaball when he tried to say that.

Payment for services rendered to you come from the premium dollars YOU put in the kitty and payment for her birth control come out of the premium dollars SHE put into the kitty.

Once again, this is not rocket science... unless complicating things is good for your politics, if that's the case then there's no amount of reasoning.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Taxes fund the government, revenue enhancements fund the government, therefore revenue enhancements are taxes. The health insurance mandate funds insurance companies, not the government, therefore it is not a tax.

More fail, still nothing to show for it.

ha, ha, ha... the echo chamber of you and that Oddball Dude is hilarious.

a tax by any other name is still a tax.

Isn;t that what I just said?

FYI, every single judge that has ruled on Obamacare has one thing in common, the mandate is not a tax. The law was specifically written to say that the mandate is not a tax, even though the IRS is responsible for making sure everyone has insurance. The judges that enthusiastically support the mandate, the ones who reluctantly say it is constitutional, the ones who think it isn't even though they aren't sure why, and the ones who outright reject the mandate all agree, it is not a tax. They have all rejected the argument put forth by the administration that, although Congress specifically said it is not a tax, it still is, because that just makes life easier.

Unanimous. Only a few pundits, lawyers that are paid to keep repeating things even if they don't believe it, and fools, are still saying that it is a tax.

Stop being a fool.

a tax by any other name is a tax. this is a conservative argument. get behind it.

Republicans Call Health Legislation a Tax Increase http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/health/policy/02tax.html

Republicans have been focusing in particular on a provision in the health legislation mandating that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Because the requirement would force some people into expenditures they would not otherwise make, Republicans assert that it amounts to a tax increase.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe most every single argument against the health care mandate is politics

[youtube]4ZvaSrztrY8[/youtube]

Can you show me a single argument in favor of the mandate that is not politics?


Charles Fried is a pretentious idiot with a degree.

the Oddball Dude attacks PBS, and you attack Prof. Fried.



tell your debate coach a refund is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't attack Fried because I disagree with him. I actually agree with him, the arguments against the mandate are all politically motivated, so are the arguments in favor of it. Pointing out that the arguments against it are political while ignoring that the arguments that support it are also political makes him pretentious.

Some of the arguments, both for and against, are well grounded in legal theory. The fact that Fried rejects all the arguments against, and then fails to make a good argument for that is actually well grounded in legal theory, makes him an idiot.

He also happens to have a degree. That makes him a pretentious idiot with a degree.

By the way, in case you missed it, I just agreed with you, again. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you makes you a lot more akin to Oddball when he just posts to disagree with someone than you might like. The difference is, his arguments are rooted in his principles and beliefs, yours are just rooted in your constant attempts to troll the board. I think that makes him better than you.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And just 'cause our insurance company pays for her birth control doesn't mean you paid for it. Her premiums are no less valuable than yours or mine are, therefore she is paying for her own health care, via the insurance method, same as you and I are.

rubbish
you can have * basic coverage everyone can get *those that need *birth control can pay for a rider to cover it those who are in a risk life style can pay for that
those who smoke and risk getting cancer pay for that ....
equally so if you fall sick/ disabled due to something you are not covered for you dont get benefits .
it works for other types of insurance why not health care ???

Right now it's a lack of choices.

If someone doesn't see a plan during open enrollment that suites the needs of their family, the only choice is to quit their job...

How will having less choices fix that?

It won't. Unless it gets knocked down to a single payer system.

That's the fucking point. We have to go one way or the other - either give me choices in health insurance that are as prevalent and as easy to execute as are choices in the auto insurance industry, or let me buy in to Medicare at a rate based on my age. The bullshit we have now ain't working.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I didn't attack Fried because I disagree with him. I actually agree with him, the arguments against the mandate are all politically motivated, so are the arguments in favor of it. Pointing out that the arguments against it are political while ignoring that the arguments that support it are also political makes him pretentious.

Some of the arguments, both for and against, are well grounded in legal theory. The fact that Fried rejects all the arguments against, and then fails to make a good argument for that is actually well grounded in legal theory, makes him an idiot.

He also happens to have a degree. That makes him a pretentious idiot with a degree.

By the way, in case you missed it, I just agreed with you, again. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you makes you a lot more akin to Oddball when he just posts to disagree with someone than you might like. The difference is, his arguments are rooted in his principles and beliefs, yours are just rooted in your constant attempts to troll the board. I think that makes him better than you.

"Charles Fried is a pretentious idiot with a degree."

Republicans have been focusing in particular on a provision in the health legislation mandating that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Because the requirement would force some people into expenditures they would not otherwise make, Republicans assert that it amounts to a tax increase. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/health/policy/02tax.html

 

[AVG-JOE]

Let me try to use real simple words when I say this. The government says that everyone has to buy insurance. The government says that all insurance must provide coverage for all forms of contraception. That means that everyone is buying contraception. It is not a matter of one person's money being more important, it is a matter of buying a treadmill and not using it, you still bought it.

Other types of insurance do not require people to buy things they do not want. People choose to buy insurance that covers getting a flat, or they choose to fix the flat themselves if they get one.

When the government tells me that my tax dollars have to go to a fire department, no matter what, isn't that a form of government mandated insurance? Are you against public fire departments, and if no - why? What's the difference?

I could live in a completely non-flammable environment, yet still have to pay. What the heck is that!

Taxes are part of government, the only thing we can do is keep them to the minimum by insisting that the government only do things that are necessary and proper for the government to do. The fire department actually falls into that category, even if you don't like it.

Get "taxes" out of your mind for this discussion - we are talking about the relationship between the consumers of private health care coverage and those who provide that service.

My health care dollars going in to a fund today to help cover costs of my health care needs down the road. It's a simple transaction that needs strict government controls or wide open competition, 'cause the bullshit we have now ain't working.