Individual mandate in trouble?

[The Rabbi]

wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that one does not choose to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.

Youv'e confused the health CARE market with the health INSURANCE market. The mandate is about insurance, not health care.
And your argument is fallacious anyway because not everyone needs expensive medical care at some point in his life.
Nor is the issue about medical care for life but rather year by year and many many people go years without needing any medical attention at all.

So other than spouting nonsense your arguments are fallacious from the get go.

since health insurance is how you pay for health care, they are one in the same for the purpose of this argument.

so now you can choose not to have a heart attack? you can choose not to get cancer? you can choose not to be born with a birth defect? the argument goes to the heart of the problem. if health care is a true commodity, then hospitals should be allowed to refuse services to any one for any reason. is this a better system for us to live in? only the rich get access to health care services?

if you want a simple solution to all of this, simply make people who do not want to purchase health insurance sign a waiver. that waiver will simply say that a hospital can refuse to provide them services if they can not provide an ability to pay. this way those of us who actually pay for our health care dont have to subsidize those who refuse to pay.

No, health insurance is not how you pay for health care. I've paid for a lot of healthcare out of my own pocket. Thus they are not identical and your argument fails. Again.
Next fallacy.

 

[Polk]

From Justice Scalia:

true, but you can also choose to grown your own food and that negates purchasing it from a store.

Exactly!

Please perform your own open heart surgery.

 

[Syphon]

Youv'e confused the health CARE market with the health INSURANCE market. The mandate is about insurance, not health care.
And your argument is fallacious anyway because not everyone needs expensive medical care at some point in his life.
Nor is the issue about medical care for life but rather year by year and many many people go years without needing any medical attention at all.

So other than spouting nonsense your arguments are fallacious from the get go.

since health insurance is how you pay for health care, they are one in the same for the purpose of this argument.

so now you can choose not to have a heart attack? you can choose not to get cancer? you can choose not to be born with a birth defect? the argument goes to the heart of the problem. if health care is a true commodity, then hospitals should be allowed to refuse services to any one for any reason. is this a better system for us to live in? only the rich get access to health care services?

if you want a simple solution to all of this, simply make people who do not want to purchase health insurance sign a waiver. that waiver will simply say that a hospital can refuse to provide them services if they can not provide an ability to pay. this way those of us who actually pay for our health care dont have to subsidize those who refuse to pay.

No, health insurance is not how you pay for health care. I've paid for a lot of healthcare out of my own pocket. Thus they are not identical and your argument fails. Again.
Next fallacy.

soooo if you develop cancer, and the treatment costs $200,000. you can foot that cost out of pocket?

and if you cant pay that, then the hospital should have the right to not provide you with the treatment right?

 

[Polk]

Deflection. Totally irrelevant to your argument.

so you agree that hospitals should be able to deny patients services if they cant pay..... noted, thanks.

Neg rep for putting words in my mouth.
That isn't the subject and you know it.

It is highly relevant to the subject though.

 

[The Rabbi]

since health insurance is how you pay for health care, they are one in the same for the purpose of this argument.

so now you can choose not to have a heart attack? you can choose not to get cancer? you can choose not to be born with a birth defect? the argument goes to the heart of the problem. if health care is a true commodity, then hospitals should be allowed to refuse services to any one for any reason. is this a better system for us to live in? only the rich get access to health care services?

if you want a simple solution to all of this, simply make people who do not want to purchase health insurance sign a waiver. that waiver will simply say that a hospital can refuse to provide them services if they can not provide an ability to pay. this way those of us who actually pay for our health care dont have to subsidize those who refuse to pay.

No, health insurance is not how you pay for health care. I've paid for a lot of healthcare out of my own pocket. Thus they are not identical and your argument fails. Again.
Next fallacy.

soooo if you develop cancer, and the treatment costs $200,000. you can foot that cost out of pocket?

Not many people in their 20s develop cancer. But cancer is not what the mandate is all about. If people had the option of catastrophic coverage we might could talk. But under Obamacare the mandate specifically outlaws high deductible catastrophic policies.
You have shifted the argument again because you've lost. Health insurance is not synonymous with health care. Plenty of people pay for health care costs out of pocket. More need to do so, btw.

 

[The Rabbi]

so you agree that hospitals should be able to deny patients services if they cant pay..... noted, thanks.

Neg rep for putting words in my mouth.
That isn't the subject and you know it.

It is highly relevant to the subject though.

No it is actually irrelevant to the subject.
But I wouldnt expect you could follow that.

 

[Polk]

Neg rep for putting words in my mouth.
That isn't the subject and you know it.

It is highly relevant to the subject though.

No it is actually irrelevant to the subject.
But I wouldnt expect you could follow that.

Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".

 

[Syphon]

No, health insurance is not how you pay for health care. I've paid for a lot of healthcare out of my own pocket. Thus they are not identical and your argument fails. Again.
Next fallacy.

soooo if you develop cancer, and the treatment costs $200,000. you can foot that cost out of pocket?

Not many people in their 20s develop cancer. But cancer is not what the mandate is all about. If people had the option of catastrophic coverage we might could talk. But under Obamacare the mandate specifically outlaws high deductible catastrophic policies.
You have shifted the argument again because you've lost. Health insurance is not synonymous with health care. Plenty of people pay for health care costs out of pocket. More need to do so, btw.

yet you can provide no link that supports you argument that people in their 20's rarely develop cancer.
yet you can develop cancer at any age anytime, and have no choice in the matter. so it does happen.

what exact section of law outlaws "high deductible" plans? id like to see that exact section verbatim.

the law mandates a minimum about of coverage. its not single payor which would be better, but it sets the minimum coverage level. this is such a terrible thing i know.

 

[candycorn]

so now if one doesnt choose to participate in the health care market, how is the mandate infringing on one's freedoms?

You're asking if someone chooses not to participate in the health INSURANCE market but is forced to by the mandate how is that an infringement on freedom?
Are you serious?

wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that one does not choose to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.

You're making a good argument but the fact of the matter is that people can refuse medical care even if they "need" it. It may be for their ill-good but they can refuse it. We have mothers refusing to get their kids vaccinated, for example.

Amazing how he was all for government intervention when his boy Perry was forcing 12 year olds to get cervical cancer shots that turned out to be deadly.

Stop wasting time with that political hack.

 

[Listening]

prove im wrong them. what law and what federal agency is forcing you to live where you currently live.......... this argument should be grand.

I'm not claiming there is.
What exactly are you trying to prove again?

how stupid he is.

so now if one doesnt choose to participate in the health care market, how is the mandate infringing on one's freedoms?

You're asking if someone chooses not to participate in the health INSURANCE market but is forced to by the mandate how is that an infringement on freedom?
Are you serious?

wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that one does not choose to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.

This is bogus bull. There is no argument that not choosing to buy insurance keeps you out of the health care market.

And.....

You can choose not to participate in the health care market. We showed that on other threads but you stilll hold to your precious article of faith.

Fail....

Still waiting for those sections of Federalist 10....

 

[francoHFW]

Unbelievable bullshytte. Welcome to a modern America. Where health care is guaranteed, affordable, and getting cheaper. No more 45k deaths or 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people who THOUGHT they had good insurance)...

 

[libreamer]

stop it!

 

[libreamer]

stop whining!

 

[libreamer]

hey, I'm a police officer

 

[libreamer]

I'm detective John Kimble!

 

[Syphon]

I'm not claiming there is.
What exactly are you trying to prove again?

how stupid he is.

You're asking if someone chooses not to participate in the health INSURANCE market but is forced to by the mandate how is that an infringement on freedom?
Are you serious?

wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that one does not choose to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.

This is bogus bull. There is no argument that not choosing to buy insurance keeps you out of the health care market.

And.....

You can choose not to participate in the health care market. We showed that on other threads but you stilll hold to your precious article of faith.

Fail....

Still waiting for those sections of Federalist 10....

now shut the fuck about fed 10. ive posted this same article for you 3 times, which proved madison was in favor of a strong central government.


Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice of government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the polity is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man;
As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed
Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government;
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.
Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue, he saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.
The environment that Madison wrote this in needed to explain how the new constitution and republican form of federal government would have greater stability than the previous continental congress. The paper also needed to explain how the system would protect against the competing factions drowning out the rights of minorities and the public good. It also needed to explain how it would halt mob rule. All issues that had posed problems in the self-government of the colonies previous, during and after the revolution of 1776.
Madison sees faction as an unavoidable in a polity of maximum liberty, and consequently seeks to minimize the violence of faction through the system; in other words controlling the effects of faction. Representative government is the process by which Madison seeks to temper this.


Short Essay on Federalist Paper No.10

The Federalist #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

 

[LockeJaw]

how stupid he is.

wow your reading comprehension is way off. it was already established that one does not choose to participate in the health care market, since everyone needs medical care at some point in their life they do not choose to participate. apparently this is was over your head. this is vastly different from choosing not to participate. guess the english language isnt your strong suite. since people dont choose to participate, this is not an infringement upon a persons freedom of choice.

This is bogus bull. There is no argument that not choosing to buy insurance keeps you out of the health care market.

And.....

You can choose not to participate in the health care market. We showed that on other threads but you stilll hold to your precious article of faith.

Fail....

Still waiting for those sections of Federalist 10....

now shut the fuck about fed 10. ive posted this same article for you 3 times, which proved madison was in favor of a strong central government.


Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice of government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the polity is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man;
As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed
Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government;
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.
Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue, he saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.
The environment that Madison wrote this in needed to explain how the new constitution and republican form of federal government would have greater stability than the previous continental congress. The paper also needed to explain how the system would protect against the competing factions drowning out the rights of minorities and the public good. It also needed to explain how it would halt mob rule. All issues that had posed problems in the self-government of the colonies previous, during and after the revolution of 1776.
Madison sees faction as an unavoidable in a polity of maximum liberty, and consequently seeks to minimize the violence of faction through the system; in other words controlling the effects of faction. Representative government is the process by which Madison seeks to temper this.


Short Essay on Federalist Paper No.10

The Federalist #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

Yada yada. Nice screen name. It suits you.

 

[dblack]

Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".

EMTALA is responsible for much less cost-shifting than the ACA apologists pretend. But I realize that they are a stingy lot and get pretty angry if they feel like any of their money is being diverted to someone in need. The thing is, we can address their selfish concerns much more easily by simply repealing EMTALA. No need for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to the insurance industry.

 

[Polk]

Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".

EMTALA is responsible for much less cost-shifting than the ACA apologists pretend. But I realize that they are a stingy lot and get pretty angry if they feel like any of their money is being diverted to someone in need. The thing is, we can address their selfish concerns much more easily by simply repealing EMTALA. No need for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to the insurance industry.

The irony meter is through the roof of someone opposed to any form of social aid claiming liberals are "angry... their money is being diverted to someone in need". The problem with repealing EMTALA is you're leaving those who truly need help in the street to die.

 

[dblack]

Of course it is. Emergency treatment requirements allow the uninsured to force their cost on to others, being involved in the market even though they are "inactive".

EMTALA is responsible for much less cost-shifting than the ACA apologists pretend. But I realize that they are a stingy lot and get pretty angry if they feel like any of their money is being diverted to someone in need. The thing is, we can address their selfish concerns much more easily by simply repealing EMTALA. No need for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to the insurance industry.

The irony meter is through the roof of someone opposed to any form of social aid claiming liberals are "angry... their money is being diverted to someone in need". The problem with repealing EMTALA is you're leaving those who truly need help in the street to die.

LOL.... hey, the irony was already sitting there. I just italicized it.