Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.
The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.
The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.
And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.
All factual statements but still not addressing the core issue.
Children have been required to get vaccinations etc. before attending school for a very long time now including well before either the federal or state governments got involved in that other than to urge parents to get it done. Parents paid for it or in most places local communities set up periodic free vaccination clinics. But all kids were required to go to school and all were required to be properly vaccinated before doing so and it got done. Without involvement of the federal government.
Children have always gotten sick and needed medical attention from time to time, and that was true before the the federal or state governments got involved in any way. And most parents took their kids to the doctor and, if they didn't have money to pay at the time, they paid it out a few dollars a week or month until they paid their bills. Many a time a local community took up collections to help out with an needed operation if the parents couldn't come up with the money. Sure some parents were irresponsible and didn't do right by their kids but that was always the exception rather than the rule. I think there are probably a higher percentage of parents now who don't do right by their kids.
Healthcare is no more essential to life, health, and happiness than is food, shelter, and clothing and it makes no more sense for the government to take over or control the entire healthcare industry any more than it makes sense for the government to take over and control all the other essentials of life.
The government should spend its energies setting up and enforcing anti trust and RICO laws and setting minimal standards of quality and safety for products and services and then let healthy competition in the free market make healthcare affordable as it does in all other essentials of life. We'll all be better off.
The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.
We are not required to carry auto insurance that pays for our own injuries or damages. We are only required to carry a specified minimum amount for any injuries or damages that we might cause to others. And if we choose to park that car and don't drive it on public roads, we are not required to have any kind of insurance on it.
Further, the matter of auto insurance is regulated within each individual state and is not the business of the Federal government. Which is how health insurance is properly managed if government is going to be involved in that at all.
You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.
The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.
The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.
And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.
Your restatement of the Government's position amounts to: This is constitutional because if it weren't we couldn't do all these jazzy things.
That isn't an argument.
The basic truth is: If the Federal government can mandate people to buy individual products then is there anything gov't cannot mandate people to do? If the answer is no, then what is the point of having a government limited by the Constitution?
You just made half of the Feds' argument and half of the State's.
The Feds are arguing that the insurance mandate is necessary because without it, the rest of us will be forced to carry the costs of both treatment for the uninsured and premium rates for the unhealthy who choose to purchase insurance. Only with the uninsured, those who choose to be uninsured generally being young and healthy, can there be a feasible cost structure to make the rest of the Act workable.
The State is making a Tenth Amendment argument that the mandate of lack thereof, in fact the entirety of the law, is solely within the purview of the States and the Federal government has no power to enact or enforce it. Similar to your statement concerning auto insurance.
And of course, adults can always choose not to go to the doctor if they're ill or injured. Children have mandated medical exams and vaccinations to attend public or private schools or child care facilities and are required to submit proof of such even when homeschooled in at least some states, and failure to seek medical care when needed can be considered neglect, but there is no such requirement for adults. So strictly speaking, medical care is also a choice, not a necessity. Most things when you get right down to it are choices The alternatives may not be attractive, but there are always alternatives.
Your restatement of the Government's position amounts to: This is constitutional because if it weren't we couldn't do all these jazzy things.
That isn't an argument.
The basic truth is: If the Federal government can mandate people to buy individual products then is there anything gov't cannot mandate people to do? If the answer is no, then what is the point of having a government limited by the Constitution?
Uber fail again, gutter boy. Please post a link to any post of mine stating with certainty that this is constitutional, then if you're willing to stop following me around and accusing me of sleeping with people for money we can argue over the weak little straw man you built out of the rest of that unsupported blather.
You gonna stalk me now? Getting tired of your usual female prey? Go for it. I've been called a lot worse than hooker and whore and told to do far worse than fuck off by far, far better than you and lived to laugh about it. Knock your socks off, you're only showing your own complete ignorance and lack of class.
Now back to that straw man....linkypoo please. Tick tock, tick tock, time's a-wastin'.
The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.
Your restatement of the Government's position amounts to: This is constitutional because if it weren't we couldn't do all these jazzy things.
That isn't an argument.
The basic truth is: If the Federal government can mandate people to buy individual products then is there anything gov't cannot mandate people to do? If the answer is no, then what is the point of having a government limited by the Constitution?
Uber fail again, gutter boy. Please post a link to any post of mine stating with certainty that this is constitutional, then if you're willing to stop following me around and accusing me of sleeping with people for money we can argue over the weak little straw man you built out of the rest of that unsupported blather.
You gonna stalk me now? Getting tired of your usual female prey? Go for it. I've been called a lot worse than hooker and whore and told to do far worse than fuck off by far, far better than you and lived to laugh about it. Knock your socks off, you're only showing your own complete ignorance and lack of class.
Now back to that straw man....linkypoo please. Tick tock, tick tock, time's a-wastin'.
WTF are you taking about? Did I every say you thought it was constitutional? No. I was stating your opinion of what you thought the gov'ts position is.
Again, your reading comprehension skills probably are on a par with your fellatio skills.
The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.
No, I think it really is.
The auto insurance mandate is because every one of us puts other people at risk every time we get out on the road. So, it makes sense that we show that we are able to make restitution should we cause injury or damage to others. It is a reasonable cost for the privilege of using the public roads. And if we choose not to drive on the public roads, we do not need and are not required to buy the insurance.
Should the government mandate people have Homeowners or flood or earthquake Insurance? It doesn't because the homeowner is allowed to assume the risk of fire, destructive winds, hail, flood, earthquake, theft, or somebody tripping and falling on the property. But nobody is REQUIRED to come onto our property; therefore we do not automatically put anybody else at risk by maintaining a property UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for our damages that we choose not to insure.
If I get sick I do not automatically put anybody else at risk UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for me to see doctor or go to the emergency room or whatever.
Whenver or whatever the federal government becomes involved in re ANY kind of entitlement, it has ALWAYS resulted in higher costs than were originally advertised and resulted in long term unsustainability. Auto insurance, however, has remained affordable and available throughout the land. The federal government has not been involved in that.
The federal government should not be involved in healthcare either.
There are already systems and mechanisms in place to stop the spread of communicable diseases.
Can the government force you to buy a Chevy Volt?
There are already systems and mechanisms in place to stop the spread of communicable diseases.
Can the government force you to buy a Chevy Volt?
Precisely what systems and mechanisms would those be?
There are already systems and mechanisms in place to stop the spread of communicable diseases.
Can the government force you to buy a Chevy Volt?
Precisely what systems and mechanisms would those be?
State and county health agencies and the CDC.
None of those work, but the new government programs will work?
What is the relationship between communicable diseases and health insurance, anyway?
The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.
No, I think it really is.
The auto insurance mandate is because every one of us puts other people at risk every time we get out on the road. So, it makes sense that we show that we are able to make restitution should we cause injury or damage to others. It is a reasonable cost for the privilege of using the public roads. And if we choose not to drive on the public roads, we do not need and are not required to buy the insurance.
Should the government mandate people have Homeowners or flood or earthquake Insurance? It doesn't because the homeowner is allowed to assume the risk of fire, destructive winds, hail, flood, earthquake, theft, or somebody tripping and falling on the property. But nobody is REQUIRED to come onto our property; therefore we do not automatically put anybody else at risk by maintaining a property UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for our damages that we choose not to insure.
If I get sick I do not automatically put anybody else at risk UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for me to see doctor or go to the emergency room or whatever.
Whenver or whatever the federal government becomes involved in re ANY kind of entitlement, it has ALWAYS resulted in higher costs than were originally advertised and resulted in long term unsustainability. Auto insurance, however, has remained affordable and available throughout the land. The federal government has not been involved in that.
The federal government should not be involved in healthcare either.
Actually, you do put other people at risk when you get sick, both physically in the case of infectious disease and financially if you are uninsured and unable to pay for your own care. Those costs are invariably passed on to the rest of us either in the form of government paid insurance or in the form of higher costs for our own healthcare, or most likely both.
That's just fact.
Now whether the Federal government has the right to regulate economic inactivity under the commerce Clause is a different question, and an interesting one. But the individual States already do it, and in a different situation where there is another form of compensation available to victims in the form of civil tort liability. In the case of shouldering another's unpaid health care costs or in almost every case of succumbing to the public health risk of untreated communicable disease there is no secondary remedy. Which, if I'm to play Devil's Advocate here, makes a mandate for health insurance more necessary rather than less.
No, I think it really is.
The auto insurance mandate is because every one of us puts other people at risk every time we get out on the road. So, it makes sense that we show that we are able to make restitution should we cause injury or damage to others. It is a reasonable cost for the privilege of using the public roads. And if we choose not to drive on the public roads, we do not need and are not required to buy the insurance.
Should the government mandate people have Homeowners or flood or earthquake Insurance? It doesn't because the homeowner is allowed to assume the risk of fire, destructive winds, hail, flood, earthquake, theft, or somebody tripping and falling on the property. But nobody is REQUIRED to come onto our property; therefore we do not automatically put anybody else at risk by maintaining a property UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for our damages that we choose not to insure.
If I get sick I do not automatically put anybody else at risk UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for me to see doctor or go to the emergency room or whatever.
Whenver or whatever the federal government becomes involved in re ANY kind of entitlement, it has ALWAYS resulted in higher costs than were originally advertised and resulted in long term unsustainability. Auto insurance, however, has remained affordable and available throughout the land. The federal government has not been involved in that.
The federal government should not be involved in healthcare either.
Actually, you do put other people at risk when you get sick, both physically in the case of infectious disease and financially if you are uninsured and unable to pay for your own care. Those costs are invariably passed on to the rest of us either in the form of government paid insurance or in the form of higher costs for our own healthcare, or most likely both.
That's just fact.
Now whether the Federal government has the right to regulate economic inactivity under the commerce Clause is a different question, and an interesting one. But the individual States already do it, and in a different situation where there is another form of compensation available to victims in the form of civil tort liability. In the case of shouldering another's unpaid health care costs or in almost every case of succumbing to the public health risk of untreated communicable disease there is no secondary remedy. Which, if I'm to play Devil's Advocate here, makes a mandate for health insurance more necessary rather than less.
Other people pay for unpaid health care costs only if the government mandates that they are required to. But again, if we could get back to the system where people are actually expected/required to pay for their healthcare costs to the extent that they are able, people are far less likely to abuse the system and the unpaid for healthcare costs are going to be minimal. People who can afford cigarettes, beer, television, cable, cell phones, computers, internet service etc. etc. etc. can jolly well afford to pay their medical bills however long that might take. If they know they're going to be paying more at the Emergency Room, they'll take their kids to the doctor and pay less.
The free market has always been a better controller of overall costs than the federal government or most state governments can do.
Government mandated healthcare is not going to control communicable diseases any better than private healthcare. The same exposures exist. Government required quarantine for communicable diseases has helped in the past and should be mandated again, however.
Actually, the providers add portion of their loss from their unpaid services in to their bills directly without asking the consumer's permission. Programs such as medicaid and "free" vaccinations are paid for using taxes, which are also not voluntary. There is no choice for the consumer.
Nobody's talking about government healthcare here. Nobody's even talking about government insurance. At issue is the mandate to purchase private health insurance either with or without the State as a broker, which coverage makes healthcare more affordable and accessible when an illness occurs and protects the rest of us from paying off others' unpaid medical debt in our own bills. Or so goes the government's argument.
I'm actually not a fan of the PPACA, probably for some of the same and probably for some very different reasons than the reasons you dislike it, but when we're talking about constitutionality and whether the mandate portion of the bill is necessary and proper for those purposes, the argument that the policy advances the intended goal is pretty cut and dried.
Actually, the providers add portion of their loss from their unpaid services in to their bills directly without asking the consumer's permission. Programs such as medicaid and "free" vaccinations are paid for using taxes, which are also not voluntary. There is no choice for the consumer.
Nobody's talking about government healthcare here. Nobody's even talking about government insurance. At issue is the mandate to purchase private health insurance either with or without the State as a broker, which coverage makes healthcare more affordable and accessible when an illness occurs and protects the rest of us from paying off others' unpaid medical debt in our own bills. Or so goes the government's argument.
I'm actually not a fan of the PPACA, probably for some of the same and probably for some very different reasons than the reasons you dislike it, but when we're talking about constitutionality and whether the mandate portion of the bill is necessary and proper for those purposes, the argument that the policy advances the intended goal is pretty cut and dried.
Not cut and dried to me. The very day that Medicare went into effect, there was abuse of the system by medical personnel. And once they figured out there were no consequences, widespread abuse of the system by patients also became a factor.
The government had deep deep pockets and wouldn't question 'legitimate' healthcare services. And from that day forward, costs began increasing proportionately to the 'free' government monies paid for healthcare costs. Ditto for Medicaid. And the government caps on Medicare and Medicaid payments shifted the costs to the rest of us so that private insurance premiums began escalating at a rapid rate. And the more mandates the government piled on--nobody could be turned away for ANY reason for any medical treatment and those who couldn't pay would be paid for by the hospital or the state--private insurance became even more expensive. Little or no accountability was required by anybody and individual responsibility was out the window altogether.
Such is the track record of essentially all government entitlements.
To think that adding 40+ million more people to the system won't dramatically further increase costs is absurd. To think that government caps on what doctors and hospitals can charge while addressing none of their costs won't drive many out of the business altogether is also absurd.
There is much the federal and state government could do to make the system more efficient:
1. Cap punative awards in all but the most egregious cases of negligence so that there would be less necessity for 'defensive medicine' and malpractice insurance would be more affordable.
2. Form assigned risk pools for the difficult to insure.
3. Establish and enforce anti trust laws so that insurance companies won't enjoy near monopolies in any place and will be forced to compete.
4. Allow doctors and other medical providers to charge everybody for their services and collect what they can get. Eliminate free healthcare as an entitlement for anybody.
5. Expect parents to provide food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare for their kids. Those that cannot or will not will be at risk of losing their kids rather than being compensated more for having more kids. (Exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances, but for the most part put the responsibility back on the individual where it has always belonged.)
6. Require all insurance to be portable. Employees covered under an employers plan have the option to take their policy with them and pay for it themselves when they change jobs or are fired or laid off.
There are many such ways to enable and empower the free market to bring down costs and insure more people without the government taking over and micromanaging the whole thing.
Actually, the providers add portion of their loss from their unpaid services in to their bills directly without asking the consumer's permission. Programs such as medicaid and "free" vaccinations are paid for using taxes, which are also not voluntary. There is no choice for the consumer.
Nobody's talking about government healthcare here. Nobody's even talking about government insurance. At issue is the mandate to purchase private health insurance either with or without the State as a broker, which coverage makes healthcare more affordable and accessible when an illness occurs and protects the rest of us from paying off others' unpaid medical debt in our own bills. Or so goes the government's argument.
I'm actually not a fan of the PPACA, probably for some of the same and probably for some very different reasons than the reasons you dislike it, but when we're talking about constitutionality and whether the mandate portion of the bill is necessary and proper for those purposes, the argument that the policy advances the intended goal is pretty cut and dried.
Not cut and dried to me. The very day that Medicare went into effect, there was abuse of the system by medical personnel. And once they figured out there were no consequences, widespread abuse of the system by patients also became a factor.
The government had deep deep pockets and wouldn't question 'legitimate' healthcare services. And from that day forward, costs began increasing proportionately to the 'free' government monies paid for healthcare costs. Ditto for Medicaid. And the government caps on Medicare and Medicaid payments shifted the costs to the rest of us so that private insurance premiums began escalating at a rapid rate. And the more mandates the government piled on--nobody could be turned away for ANY reason for any medical treatment and those who couldn't pay would be paid for by the hospital or the state--private insurance became even more expensive. Little or no accountability was required by anybody and individual responsibility was out the window altogether.
Such is the track record of essentially all government entitlements.
To think that adding 40+ million more people to the system won't dramatically further increase costs is absurd. To think that government caps on what doctors and hospitals can charge while addressing none of their costs won't drive many out of the business altogether is also absurd.
There is much the federal and state government could do to make the system more efficient:
1. Cap punative awards in all but the most egregious cases of negligence so that there would be less necessity for 'defensive medicine' and malpractice insurance would be more affordable.
2. Form assigned risk pools for the difficult to insure.
3. Establish and enforce anti trust laws so that insurance companies won't enjoy near monopolies in any place and will be forced to compete.
4. Allow doctors and other medical providers to charge everybody for their services and collect what they can get. Eliminate free healthcare as an entitlement for anybody.
5. Expect parents to provide food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare for their kids. Those that cannot or will not will be at risk of losing their kids rather than being compensated more for having more kids. (Exceptions can be made for extenuating circumstances, but for the most part put the responsibility back on the individual where it has always belonged.)
6. Require all insurance to be portable. Employees covered under an employers plan have the option to take their policy with them and pay for it themselves when they change jobs or are fired or laid off.
There are many such ways to enable and empower the free market to bring down costs and insure more people without the government taking over and micromanaging the whole thing.
I actually agree with some of that, but when you're talking about the constitutionality of a law none of it matters a whit. It doesn't matter if a law is good or makes sense, it doesn't matter if the policy actually works as intended, it only matters that it is allowed under current constitutional guidelines OR, more difficult to win, that it highlights a serious flaw in the current constitutional guidelines that must be changed.
IOW the courts have no authority to strike down a law for being a bad law, only for being an unauthorized one. The fact that there are many, many other paradigms Congress could have adopted that could or would have gotten better results is irrelevant to the courts. They can only work with what's before them applying the laws as they exist to the arguments that are made.
I realize we're looking at this from very different places and points of view, but the suggestions you're making simply cannot be addressed anywhere but Congress and don't enter into the discussion of whether PPACA is or is not constitutional.
Again, your reading comprehension skills probably are on a par with your fellatio skills.
Uber fail again, gutter boy. Please post a link to any post of mine stating with certainty that this is constitutional, then if you're willing to stop following me around and accusing me of sleeping with people for money we can argue over the weak little straw man you built out of the rest of that unsupported blather.
You gonna stalk me now? Getting tired of your usual female prey? Go for it. I've been called a lot worse than hooker and whore and told to do far worse than fuck off by far, far better than you and lived to laugh about it. Knock your socks off, you're only showing your own complete ignorance and lack of class.
Now back to that straw man....linkypoo please. Tick tock, tick tock, time's a-wastin'.
WTF are you taking about? Did I every say you thought it was constitutional? No. I was stating your opinion of what you thought the gov'ts position is.
Again, your reading comprehension skills probably are on a par with your fellatio skills.
Nice backtrack, gutter boy. Now how about a little actual analysis of what's really been said and posted and perhaps even crafting some semblance of an argument if you're going to try to debate?
Keep dancing for me, that's a good little gutter boy. You might graduate from rolling in the gutter to sleeping under the bridge if you keep behaving.
The question posed was whether the health insurance mandate was different from the auto insurance mandate enforced via civil and criminal penalty by the States. The straight factual answer is, it really isn't.
No, I think it really is.
The auto insurance mandate is because every one of us puts other people at risk every time we get out on the road. So, it makes sense that we show that we are able to make restitution should we cause injury or damage to others. It is a reasonable cost for the privilege of using the public roads. And if we choose not to drive on the public roads, we do not need and are not required to buy the insurance.
Should the government mandate people have Homeowners or flood or earthquake Insurance? It doesn't because the homeowner is allowed to assume the risk of fire, destructive winds, hail, flood, earthquake, theft, or somebody tripping and falling on the property. But nobody is REQUIRED to come onto our property; therefore we do not automatically put anybody else at risk by maintaining a property UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for our damages that we choose not to insure.
If I get sick I do not automatically put anybody else at risk UNLESS the government unconstitutionally and foolishly requires others to pay for me to see doctor or go to the emergency room or whatever.
Whenver or whatever the federal government becomes involved in re ANY kind of entitlement, it has ALWAYS resulted in higher costs than were originally advertised and resulted in long term unsustainability. Auto insurance, however, has remained affordable and available throughout the land. The federal government has not been involved in that.
The federal government should not be involved in healthcare either.
Actually, you do put other people at risk when you get sick, both physically in the case of infectious disease and financially if you are uninsured and unable to pay for your own care. Those costs are invariably passed on to the rest of us either in the form of government paid insurance or in the form of higher costs for our own healthcare, or most likely both.
That's just fact.
Now whether the Federal government has the right to regulate economic inactivity under the commerce Clause is a different question, and an interesting one. But the individual States already do it, and in a different situation where there is another form of compensation available to victims in the form of civil tort liability. In the case of shouldering another's unpaid health care costs or in almost every case of succumbing to the public health risk of untreated communicable disease there is no secondary remedy. Which, if I'm to play Devil's Advocate here, makes a mandate for health insurance more necessary rather than less.
