SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

[Vidi]

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

You're confusing health care market with the health insurance market.

I'm not. Health Insurance premiums are directly related to Health Care Costs. If costs go up, so do Premiums.

 

[saveliberty]

I remember many of us stating the forced coverage was unconstitutional

Then we mentioned the program was too expensive and would drain the federal coffers.

Also pointed out that rationed care was a natural solution government would use in the future.

Pay attention please.

 

[saveliberty]

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

You're confusing health care market with the health insurance market.

I'm not. Health Insurance premiums are directly related to Health Care Costs. If costs go up, so do Premiums.

If they are directly related lowering premiums will make costs go down. Good luck with that theory. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Vidi]

I remember many of us stating the forced coverage was unconstitutional

Then we mentioned the program was too expensive and would drain the federal coffers.

Also pointed out that rationed care was a natural solution government would use in the future.

Pay attention please.

You think private unregulated insurance companies prevent ANY of that?

C'mon. Give me a REAL reason to be against it. Don't just say," Nothing changes"

 

[dblack]

I remember many of us stating the forced coverage was unconstitutional

Then we mentioned the program was too expensive and would drain the federal coffers.

Also pointed out that rationed care was a natural solution government would use in the future.

Pay attention please.

You think private unregulated insurance companies prevent ANY of that?

C'mon. Give me a REAL reason to be against it. Don't just say," Nothing changes"

OK, how about this?
1. Overuse of insurance fuels health care inflation.
2. Inserting insurance companies as middlemen, profit-taking middlemen, in every single health care transaction is wasteful and unnecessary. It benefits only the insurance companies.
3. Mandating monolithic solutions squelches innovation and better ideas.

Want more?

 

[The Rabbi]

I am not claiming I have a right to low cost anything. I do however have the right to not be pillaged.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that I do not purchase health insurance, but get sick or injured, then incur bills that I cannot pay. Who pays then?

The cost of my treatment would then be passed along to everyone else.

By what right can I take the fruit of your labor for my benefit?




As far as the food analogy, you're making the broccoli argument. Their choice to not purchase Brocoli does not cause the price to increase, therefore it's a false equivilency.

That is the same for every other good or service. Other people's behavior influences the price you pay. Why does that entitle you to anything?

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

No, if you remove yourself from the market you lower demand. The product may not get made at all. And by your reasoning if you buy the product you increase prices. Do you want a subsidy?

 

[saveliberty]

I remember many of us stating the forced coverage was unconstitutional

Then we mentioned the program was too expensive and would drain the federal coffers.

Also pointed out that rationed care was a natural solution government would use in the future.

Pay attention please.

You think private unregulated insurance companies prevent ANY of that?

C'mon. Give me a REAL reason to be against it. Don't just say," Nothing changes"

Show me an unregulated private insurance company.

 

[Vidi]

I remember many of us stating the forced coverage was unconstitutional

Then we mentioned the program was too expensive and would drain the federal coffers.

Also pointed out that rationed care was a natural solution government would use in the future.

Pay attention please.

You think private unregulated insurance companies prevent ANY of that?

C'mon. Give me a REAL reason to be against it. Don't just say," Nothing changes"

Show me an unregulated private insurance company.

Private health insurance IS rationed care.

Deductibles, maximum annual payouts, maximum lifetime payouts. THATS rationed health care.

The Constitutionality issue is still up for grabs, hence the case. Honestly i can see it going either way.

But if youre going to be AGAINST something, shouldnt you be against it for things that DONT exist in what youre advocating?

 

[Vidi]

Republican AG Buddy Caldwell insurance companies - YouTube

In fairness, Buddy caldwell is a recent convert from Democrat to Republican, but he is one of the Attorney Generals suing in this case.

And he says:

No, no. The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that's going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won't have to go through an insurance policy, that'd be a whole lot better.

Did he just advocate Government Run health care? WTF????

 

[saveliberty]

You think private unregulated insurance companies prevent ANY of that?

C'mon. Give me a REAL reason to be against it. Don't just say," Nothing changes"

Show me an unregulated private insurance company.

Private health insurance IS rationed care.

Deductibles, maximum annual payouts, maximum lifetime payouts. THATS rationed health care.

The Constitutionality issue is still up for grabs, hence the case. Honestly i can see it going either way.

But if youre going to be AGAINST something, shouldnt you be against it for things that DONT exist in what youre advocating?

I read, you can't find an unregulated private insurance company.

 

[Vidi]

That is the same for every other good or service. Other people's behavior influences the price you pay. Why does that entitle you to anything?

No. In every other case of you remove yourself from the market, it increases supply and lowers demand, thereby, in theory, lower cost.

In health care insurance, you cannot remove yourself from the market, because you are just one illness or injury away from being placed into the market.

And once you cannot pay the bill, it's up to the rest of us to shoulder your burden.

Your rights do not extend to removing my property from me without due process.

No, if you remove yourself from the market you lower demand. The product may not get made at all. And by your reasoning if you buy the product you increase prices. Do you want a subsidy?

Thats nto how it works with Health Care.

With health care, you remove yourself from the market...then circumstances beyond your control thrust you into the market, ( illness , accident )

If you cannot pay the bill , then others must pay it for you. That cost is passed along to other people in the form of higher health care costs which in turn raise the price of health care insurance.

So either you support someone reaching into your pocket and stealing from you or you dont. At least be consistent about it.

 

[Vidi]

Show me an unregulated private insurance company.

Private health insurance IS rationed care.

Deductibles, maximum annual payouts, maximum lifetime payouts. THATS rationed health care.

The Constitutionality issue is still up for grabs, hence the case. Honestly i can see it going either way.

But if youre going to be AGAINST something, shouldnt you be against it for things that DONT exist in what youre advocating?

I read, you can't find an unregulated private insurance company.

What I read from your statement was you cant argue against my point so youve thrown in a red herring.

You've made an unreasonable request that has nothing to do with my statement that Private Health Insurance is already rationed and it would be if it were regulated or not...IN FACT, if it were completely unregulated, I would wager a years wages, it would be MORE rationed to increase the profits of the health insurance companies.

 

[saveliberty]

Private health insurance IS rationed care.

Deductibles, maximum annual payouts, maximum lifetime payouts. THATS rationed health care.

The Constitutionality issue is still up for grabs, hence the case. Honestly i can see it going either way.

But if youre going to be AGAINST something, shouldnt you be against it for things that DONT exist in what youre advocating?

I read, you can't find an unregulated private insurance company.

What I read from your statement was you cant argue against my point so youve thrown in a red herring.

You've made an unreasonable request that has nothing to do with my statement that Private Health Insurance is already rationed and it would be if it were regulated or not...IN FACT, if it were completely unregulated, I would wager a years wages, it would be MORE rationed to increase the profits of the health insurance companies.

No YOU used unregulated private insurance companies as an example of something like it exists. You lose. The better comparision would be current insurance practices on service availability to Obamacare in a budget bind. See, that is why the board Obamacare created exists, to ration care further than it would start out.

 

[Flopper]

In 1792, just three years after ratifying the constitution, Congress passed a law requiring every able-bodied male to purchase a firearm. If congress can pass a law requiring the purchase of gun, then surely they can pass a law requiring the purchase of health insurance. In fact, during John Adams presidency, merchant seaman were required buy health insurance. Draftees into the military have been required to purchase items such drivers licenses, and even weapons. This is certainly not the first time the government has forced people to make purchase they did not want to make.

 

[saveliberty]

In 1792, just three years after ratifying the constitution, Congress passed a law requiring every able-bodied male to purchase a firearm. If congress can pass a law requiring the purchase of gun, then surely they can pass a law requiring the purchase health insurance. In fact, during John Adams presidency, merchant seaman were required by insurance. Draftees into the military have been required to purchase items such drivers licenses, and even weapons. This is certainly not the first time the government has forced people to make purchase.

Note, in all the cited examples, specific groups were selected, not everyone.

Guns are in the Constitution, healthcare, nope.

 

[dblack]

In 1792, just three years after ratifying the constitution, Congress passed a law requiring every able-bodied male to purchase a firearm. If congress can pass a law requiring the purchase of gun, then surely they can pass a law requiring the purchase of health insurance. In fact, during John Adams presidency, merchant seaman were required buy health insurance. Draftees into the military have been required to purchase items such drivers licenses, and even weapons. This is certainly not the first time the government has forced people to make purchase.

so....

what...?

It was wrong then. It's wrong now.

 

[saveliberty]

1792? What fool didn't already own a firearm? Basically citizens were the militia for common defense.

 

[Flopper]

In 1792, just three years after ratifying the constitution, Congress passed a law requiring every able-bodied male to purchase a firearm. If congress can pass a law requiring the purchase of gun, then surely they can pass a law requiring the purchase health insurance. In fact, during John Adams presidency, merchant seaman were required by insurance. Draftees into the military have been required to purchase items such drivers licenses, and even weapons. This is certainly not the first time the government has forced people to make purchase.

Note, in all the cited examples, specific groups were selected, not everyone.

Guns are in the Constitution, healthcare, nope.

The mandate does not include everyone. Among the exceptions undocumented immigrants, American Indians, those in prison and those with certain religious objections.

 

[Vidi]

I remember many of us stating the forced coverage was unconstitutional

Then we mentioned the program was too expensive and would drain the federal coffers.

Also pointed out that rationed care was a natural solution government would use in the future.

Pay attention please.

You think private unregulated insurance companies prevent ANY of that?

C'mon. Give me a REAL reason to be against it. Don't just say," Nothing changes"

OK, how about this?
1. Overuse of insurance fuels health care inflation.
2. Inserting insurance companies as middlemen, profit-taking middlemen, in every single health care transaction is wasteful and unnecessary. It benefits only the insurance companies.
3. Mandating monolithic solutions squelches innovation and better ideas.

Want more?

See now THOSE are arguments that may have some merit!

I'd need something backing them up to be convinced but at least I can see the possibility of them being true.

Thank you, DBlack.

 

[Vidi]

I read, you can't find an unregulated private insurance company.

What I read from your statement was you cant argue against my point so youve thrown in a red herring.

You've made an unreasonable request that has nothing to do with my statement that Private Health Insurance is already rationed and it would be if it were regulated or not...IN FACT, if it were completely unregulated, I would wager a years wages, it would be MORE rationed to increase the profits of the health insurance companies.

No YOU used unregulated private insurance companies as an example of something like it exists. You lose. The better comparision would be current insurance practices on service availability to Obamacare in a budget bind. See, that is why the board Obamacare created exists, to ration care further than it would start out.

You mean IPAB? That board? That doesn't even begin to function for another two years?

And again with the red herring.

If both systems are rationed care, then arguing for or against either one on that basis is irrelevant.

2 + 2 =/= StarFish