What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Individual mandates

LilOlLady

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
9,757
Reaction score
1,157
Points
190
Location
Reno, NV
INDIVIDUAL MANDATES

Individual mandate to buy healthcare should not be unconstitutional. Healthcare is not a product like broccolli but a service like auto insurance that everyone who has a body should be required to have in case of an illness or accident that send one to ER for medical care that would burden the tax payers.
If an individual mandate that everyone who has a body buy healthcare is unconstitutional then mandate that every auto owner to buy auto insurance should be unconstitutional also.
Mandate that auto owners buy auto insurance protect everyone who won a car and drive it. A liability like healthcare and auto insurance is for our own protection. I cannot understand why anyone who has a body do not want healthcare coverage? Or has a car do not want auto insurance?
Some state require you to buy “uninsured motorist” coverage that protect you form a drive who do not have insurance coverage. If someone hits you that do not have auto insurance, you are covered. But file a claim against your uninsured motorist coverage and your premiums will go up.
We pay for medical uninsured by higher hospital charges and higher medical care premiums.
An elderly friend of mine refused to buy into Medicare and had a stroke and guess who paid her bill? The county? Guess who that is? Taxpayers.
Illegal aliens are not required to carry Medical insurance and use ER for their primary physicians and for delivery reimbursed by the county or state. Tax payers.
HAWC medical and dental clinic here in Reno,NV has 90% of their patient are illegal or Hispanic and they pay a discount of $40 and the county or state pay the rest of $125.
If the Constitution state it is not constitutional to mandate one to buy healthcare then the Constitution needs to be amended because this is not 1776 and doctors do not accept chickens and corn as payment for medical care. There was a time when auto insurance and driver license were no required either.
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own. Like illegal aliens who drive into ER in Escalades for free medical care.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
INDIVIDUAL MANDATES

Individual mandate to buy healthcare should not be unconstitutional. Healthcare is not a product like broccolli but a service like auto insurance that everyone who has a body should be required to have in case of an illness or accident that send one to ER for medical care that would burden the tax payers.
If an individual mandate that everyone who has a body buy healthcare is unconstitutional then mandate that every auto owner to buy auto insurance should be unconstitutional also.
Mandate that auto owners buy auto insurance protect everyone who won a car and drive it. A liability like healthcare and auto insurance is for our own protection. I cannot understand why anyone who has a body do not want healthcare coverage? Or has a car do not want auto insurance?
Some state require you to buy “uninsured motorist” coverage that protect you form a drive who do not have insurance coverage. If someone hits you that do not have auto insurance, you are covered. But file a claim against your uninsured motorist coverage and your premiums will go up.
We pay for medical uninsured by higher hospital charges and higher medical care premiums.
An elderly friend of mine refused to buy into Medicare and had a stroke and guess who paid her bill? The county? Guess who that is? Taxpayers.
Illegal aliens are not required to carry Medical insurance and use ER for their primary physicians and for delivery reimbursed by the county or state. Tax payers.
HAWC medical and dental clinic here in Reno,NV has 90% of their patient are illegal or Hispanic and they pay a discount of $40 and the county or state pay the rest of $125.
If the Constitution state it is not constitutional to mandate one to buy healthcare then the Constitution needs to be amended because this is not 1776 and doctors do not accept chickens and corn as payment for medical care. There was a time when auto insurance and driver license were no required either.
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own. Like illegal aliens who drive into ER in Escalades for free medical care.

It might cost me money, so lets line them up and shot them at dawn. OK

Change the law, dont take way my freedoms. Who are you to determine what I can or can not afford?
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
Uhhhh... Lil ole loony, Car Insurance is mandated by the state, not the feds. Of course, any state can stop mandating you have car insurance at any time. THAT is why it's constitutional. The feds don't require you to carry insurance. They can't.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
70,910
Reaction score
28,622
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually
It might cost me money, so lets line them up and shot them at dawn. OK

Change the law, dont take way my freedoms. Who are you to determine what I can or can not afford?

Clearly you’ve not read the Act, or if you have you don’t understand it. Your opposition to the Act is based on partisan, not Constitutional, reasons.

Your decision to not buy insurance has an effect on the market, which is Constitutionally subject to Congressional regulation.

Sutton's opinion slices and dices the key arguments made by those who claim the individual mandate, which requires almost everyone to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional. Their primary claim is a states'-rights one, that Congress doesn't have power to regulate "inactivity" under the Commerce Clause since inaction doesn't affect interstate commerce, and without that limit, there would be no meaningful constraints on what Congress can do.

First, Sutton easily found that the individual mandate "substantially affects" interstate commerce, noting that obtaining, paying for and insuring for health care are activities that soak up 17.6 percent of the national economy.

By choosing not to buy health insurance and self-insuring instead, one is likely relying on others to pay when catastrophe strikes - decisions that cost $43 billion in uncompensated medical care in 2008. In light of this, Sutton wrote, "the decisions and actions of the self-insured substantially affect interstate commerce."

Sutton pointed to prior cases on which the Supreme Court upheld federal laws under the Commerce Clause, one that limited the amount of wheat an American farmer could grow for his own use, and another that prohibited a medical-marijuana patient in California from growing her own supply. He said if these people affect interstate commerce, so do the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.

Second, as to the argument that preventing Congress from regulating "inactivity" is a necessary limit on federal power under the Commerce Clause, Sutton found no such limitation. For example, he noted that Congress can force activity, such as the payment of child support. It can also force inaction, such as prohibiting the possession of certain drugs.

His answer to whether this opens the door for Congress to compel Americans to join health clubs or buy vegetables was that health insurance is easily distinguished. "Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life," Sutton wrote.

And, if this is such an indefensibly intrusive law, Sutton asked, why is only Congress barred? Why not the states too? Yet few suggest that Massachusetts didn't have the power to compel individuals to buy health insurance.

The ease with which Sutton - whom Scalia once called "one of the best law clerks I ever had" - found the health-reform law constitutional is promising. Maybe Sutton's willingness to do his job fairly without ideological influence will rub off on fellow conservatives when the issue goes before the Supreme Court, probably next term. Maybe.

Sutton's health-care ruling could be pivotal | The Columbus Dispatch
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
10,093
Points
2,030
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own.

I'd stick with this. It was the only part of your post that made any sense.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
It might cost me money, so lets line them up and shot them at dawn. OK

Change the law, dont take way my freedoms. Who are you to determine what I can or can not afford?

Clearly you’ve not read the Act, or if you have you don’t understand it. Your opposition to the Act is based on partisan, not Constitutional, reasons.

Your decision to not buy insurance has an effect on the market, which is Constitutionally subject to Congressional regulation.

Sutton's opinion slices and dices the key arguments made by those who claim the individual mandate, which requires almost everyone to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional. Their primary claim is a states'-rights one, that Congress doesn't have power to regulate "inactivity" under the Commerce Clause since inaction doesn't affect interstate commerce, and without that limit, there would be no meaningful constraints on what Congress can do.

First, Sutton easily found that the individual mandate "substantially affects" interstate commerce, noting that obtaining, paying for and insuring for health care are activities that soak up 17.6 percent of the national economy.

By choosing not to buy health insurance and self-insuring instead, one is likely relying on others to pay when catastrophe strikes - decisions that cost $43 billion in uncompensated medical care in 2008. In light of this, Sutton wrote, "the decisions and actions of the self-insured substantially affect interstate commerce."

Sutton pointed to prior cases on which the Supreme Court upheld federal laws under the Commerce Clause, one that limited the amount of wheat an American farmer could grow for his own use, and another that prohibited a medical-marijuana patient in California from growing her own supply. He said if these people affect interstate commerce, so do the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.

Second, as to the argument that preventing Congress from regulating "inactivity" is a necessary limit on federal power under the Commerce Clause, Sutton found no such limitation. For example, he noted that Congress can force activity, such as the payment of child support. It can also force inaction, such as prohibiting the possession of certain drugs.

His answer to whether this opens the door for Congress to compel Americans to join health clubs or buy vegetables was that health insurance is easily distinguished. "Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life," Sutton wrote.

And, if this is such an indefensibly intrusive law, Sutton asked, why is only Congress barred? Why not the states too? Yet few suggest that Massachusetts didn't have the power to compel individuals to buy health insurance.

The ease with which Sutton - whom Scalia once called "one of the best law clerks I ever had" - found the health-reform law constitutional is promising. Maybe Sutton's willingness to do his job fairly without ideological influence will rub off on fellow conservatives when the issue goes before the Supreme Court, probably next term. Maybe.

Sutton's health-care ruling could be pivotal | The Columbus Dispatch

You dont anything about me to talk any trash.

If the government can make you purchase this they can make you buy anything under the guise it may cost someone else.


Time to bring hats to the mandatory status. The sun causes cancer.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
10,093
Points
2,030
Your decision to not buy insurance has an effect on the market, which is Constitutionally subject to Congressional regulation.

Well, let's be clear; it's that very interpretation we're disputing. The notion that the power to regulate interstate commerce extends to anything that "substantially effects" interstate commerce, is fantastically broad and essentially gives Congress unlimited power over nearly every aspect of our lives. This statute needs to be reversed. Hopefully the insurance mandate will provide the opportunity.
 

iamwhatiseem

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
35,843
Reaction score
19,289
Points
1,905
Location
On a hill
Uhhhh... Lil ole loony, Car Insurance is mandated by the state, not the feds. Of course, any state can stop mandating you have car insurance at any time. THAT is why it's constitutional. The feds don't require you to carry insurance. They can't.

Exactly.
It is not the same also because driving is a privilege governed by the state, therefore it can mandate rules and regulations thereof.
Healthcare is not a privilege governed by the federal government, therefore it cannot mandate health insurance.

Kool Aid myth #5248894 debunked.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
INDIVIDUAL MANDATES

Individual mandate to buy healthcare should not be unconstitutional. Healthcare is not a product like broccolli but a service like auto insurance that everyone who has a body should be required to have in case of an illness or accident that send one to ER for medical care that would burden the tax payers.
If an individual mandate that everyone who has a body buy healthcare is unconstitutional then mandate that every auto owner to buy auto insurance should be unconstitutional also.
Mandate that auto owners buy auto insurance protect everyone who won a car and drive it. A liability like healthcare and auto insurance is for our own protection. I cannot understand why anyone who has a body do not want healthcare coverage? Or has a car do not want auto insurance?
Some state require you to buy “uninsured motorist” coverage that protect you form a drive who do not have insurance coverage. If someone hits you that do not have auto insurance, you are covered. But file a claim against your uninsured motorist coverage and your premiums will go up.
We pay for medical uninsured by higher hospital charges and higher medical care premiums.
An elderly friend of mine refused to buy into Medicare and had a stroke and guess who paid her bill? The county? Guess who that is? Taxpayers.
Illegal aliens are not required to carry Medical insurance and use ER for their primary physicians and for delivery reimbursed by the county or state. Tax payers.
HAWC medical and dental clinic here in Reno,NV has 90% of their patient are illegal or Hispanic and they pay a discount of $40 and the county or state pay the rest of $125.
If the Constitution state it is not constitutional to mandate one to buy healthcare then the Constitution needs to be amended because this is not 1776 and doctors do not accept chickens and corn as payment for medical care. There was a time when auto insurance and driver license were no required either.
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own. Like illegal aliens who drive into ER in Escalades for free medical care.

You want two different things. You want everyone to pay for their own healthcare, something I agree with, and you want everyone to participate in a system that spreads the cost of healthcare so that anyone who needs healthcare does not actually have to pay for it. Yet, for some reason, you think I am confused.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
It might cost me money, so lets line them up and shot them at dawn. OK

Change the law, dont take way my freedoms. Who are you to determine what I can or can not afford?
Clearly you’ve not read the Act, or if you have you don’t understand it. Your opposition to the Act is based on partisan, not Constitutional, reasons.

Your decision to not buy insurance has an effect on the market, which is Constitutionally subject to Congressional regulation.

Sutton's opinion slices and dices the key arguments made by those who claim the individual mandate, which requires almost everyone to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional. Their primary claim is a states'-rights one, that Congress doesn't have power to regulate "inactivity" under the Commerce Clause since inaction doesn't affect interstate commerce, and without that limit, there would be no meaningful constraints on what Congress can do.

First, Sutton easily found that the individual mandate "substantially affects" interstate commerce, noting that obtaining, paying for and insuring for health care are activities that soak up 17.6 percent of the national economy.

By choosing not to buy health insurance and self-insuring instead, one is likely relying on others to pay when catastrophe strikes - decisions that cost $43 billion in uncompensated medical care in 2008. In light of this, Sutton wrote, "the decisions and actions of the self-insured substantially affect interstate commerce."

Sutton pointed to prior cases on which the Supreme Court upheld federal laws under the Commerce Clause, one that limited the amount of wheat an American farmer could grow for his own use, and another that prohibited a medical-marijuana patient in California from growing her own supply. He said if these people affect interstate commerce, so do the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.

Second, as to the argument that preventing Congress from regulating "inactivity" is a necessary limit on federal power under the Commerce Clause, Sutton found no such limitation. For example, he noted that Congress can force activity, such as the payment of child support. It can also force inaction, such as prohibiting the possession of certain drugs.

His answer to whether this opens the door for Congress to compel Americans to join health clubs or buy vegetables was that health insurance is easily distinguished. "Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life," Sutton wrote.

And, if this is such an indefensibly intrusive law, Sutton asked, why is only Congress barred? Why not the states too? Yet few suggest that Massachusetts didn't have the power to compel individuals to buy health insurance.

The ease with which Sutton - whom Scalia once called "one of the best law clerks I ever had" - found the health-reform law constitutional is promising. Maybe Sutton's willingness to do his job fairly without ideological influence will rub off on fellow conservatives when the issue goes before the Supreme Court, probably next term. Maybe.

Sutton's health-care ruling could be pivotal | The Columbus Dispatch

How is it a partisan issue? One of the judges that ruled against the mandate was a Democratic appointee, and one that ruled for it was a Republican appointee. I think that proves that the people who do not understand the issues are the ones that are insisting that it is partisan.

The really funny thing is that almost every libertarian is opposed to the mandate, and libertarians are not all that partisan in the normal left/right sense of the word.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own.

I'd stick with this. It was the only part of your post that made any sense.

She thinks insurance means you pay for your own healthcare. Once you accept that delusion everything she says make sense.
 

Lovebears65

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
6,745
Reaction score
2,196
Points
325
Location
Georgia
No one mandates you to have car insurance. You dont have to drive period.
 

kiwiman127

Comfortably Moderate
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
11,797
Reaction score
3,424
Points
350
Location
4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own.

I'd stick with this. It was the only part of your post that made any sense.

But, an individual who does have health care insurance still ends up paying for the medical care for a person wihout health care insurance or the moneyto pay their bill.

Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care

WASHINGTON — The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.
Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.
Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care - USATODAY.com


How the conclusion was made:

This cost shift to health insurance premiums is a “hidden health tax.” To quantify this “tax,” Families USA contracted with Milliman, Inc., an independent actuarial consulting firm, to analyze federal Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data and data from other federal and private sources. Based on these data, Milliman estimated the total national cost of uncompensated care provided to the uninsured, and it quantified that amount spread across the privately covered, non-Medicare, non-Medicaid population.
Hidden Health Tax

So in a perfect world, if the US was paying the same cost of health care that the rest of the world is paying, we wouldn't be having much of a debate about who's pay what and who's paying for whom.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
47,607
Reaction score
10,093
Points
2,030
But, an individual who does have health care insurance still ends up paying for the medical care for a person wihout health care insurance or the moneyto pay their bill.

It's not quite like that, but it is true that your premiums will go up if less people are insured. That's the nature of insurance. The less people who are in a plan, the higher the premiums are likely to be for any individual policy holder in the plan. They have less room to spread costs around that way. That same dynamic exists in any sort of insurance (fire, auto, etc).

With health insurance, they've also relied for years on an expanding subscriber base. But that base of new customers is drying up. And that (along with health care price inflation driven by - you guessed it - insurance) is why premiums are going up. But do you really think that gives you the right to force other people in to buying into your little game?
 

AmericanFirst

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
12,204
Reaction score
1,062
Points
175
INDIVIDUAL MANDATES

Individual mandate to buy healthcare should not be unconstitutional. Healthcare is not a product like broccolli but a service like auto insurance that everyone who has a body should be required to have in case of an illness or accident that send one to ER for medical care that would burden the tax payers.
If an individual mandate that everyone who has a body buy healthcare is unconstitutional then mandate that every auto owner to buy auto insurance should be unconstitutional also.
Mandate that auto owners buy auto insurance protect everyone who won a car and drive it. A liability like healthcare and auto insurance is for our own protection. I cannot understand why anyone who has a body do not want healthcare coverage? Or has a car do not want auto insurance?
Some state require you to buy “uninsured motorist” coverage that protect you form a drive who do not have insurance coverage. If someone hits you that do not have auto insurance, you are covered. But file a claim against your uninsured motorist coverage and your premiums will go up.
We pay for medical uninsured by higher hospital charges and higher medical care premiums.
An elderly friend of mine refused to buy into Medicare and had a stroke and guess who paid her bill? The county? Guess who that is? Taxpayers.
Illegal aliens are not required to carry Medical insurance and use ER for their primary physicians and for delivery reimbursed by the county or state. Tax payers.
HAWC medical and dental clinic here in Reno,NV has 90% of their patient are illegal or Hispanic and they pay a discount of $40 and the county or state pay the rest of $125.
If the Constitution state it is not constitutional to mandate one to buy healthcare then the Constitution needs to be amended because this is not 1776 and doctors do not accept chickens and corn as payment for medical care. There was a time when auto insurance and driver license were no required either.
I should not be required to pay for another person’s medical care if they are financially able to provide for their own. Like illegal aliens who drive into ER in Escalades for free medical care.
Yes it should be and is unconstitutional.The gov't. does not have the right to tell me what to buy or sell. Keep up the stupid comparison with auto insurance. You don't have to have a car, no car no insurance.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top