• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Individual Healthcare mandate upheld

I'm trying to do the math in my head and it just doesn't add up. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding and if I am, hopefully someone can correct me.

Let's say I'm a doctor. I've got the ability to serve 100 people. I'm only one person. There are limits to what I can do. The community I live in has 125 people, but I only serve 75 of them as 50 of them have no insurance. So I'm happy. I'm helping people. My 75 patients are happy with their service. Then Obamacare comes in. Now everyone is forced to buy insurance and is now insured. I only have the ability to server 100 people and I've got 125 in the community. I've basically got two options at this point. I can either raise my prices to drive off the business that would overwhelm me or I can flat out deny service to 25 people. If I do the former, then that's not going to be all that effective. The insured aren't paying out of pocket much at all so they'll keep coming and the cost is just going to go to the insurance companies who are going to pass it along to the consumers in the form of premiums which are being subsidized by the taxpayers so everyone pays more. So my only option is to deny people service. We have a system that's somewhat taxed already. Add millions more patients and we will have people who are insured, but can't get service anywhere but an ER.

But let's lay this all aside for a moment. Let's say for the sake of argument that if everyone buys insurance, the cost of health insurance will go down and the quality of healthcare will go up. You still have no issue with the government FORCING people to buy a product and fining them if they don't?
 
A.Nonymous said:
Nobody is saying out system works. Just that this "solution" makes things worse.
Click to expand...

Yet you would be opposed to UHC.

And I really would hope with the amount America spends on health that it isnt overstretched. Overstretched comes to mind when I think of European healthcare, inefficient is what comes to mind when I think of American healthcare.
 
A.Nonymous said:
It was ruled constitutional because they ruled that it is a tax. And it's an insane tax at that. Look at something like homeowners insurance. Should I be required by law to have it? If a tornado comes through and wipes out my house (and I live in tornado alley) and I have no insurance is it reasonable for me to expect the government to pay to rebuild my house? Of course not. Should I then be required by law to carry home owner's insurance? Of course not. Yet we're making the same identical argument with health insurance.
Click to expand...

I am relatively sure you are required by your mortgage company that you have homeowners insurance. If your mortgage is backed by Fannie or Freddie then that is a government mandate.
 
ylexot said:
They may be the most accurate government estimates, but they are still absolute garbage. I'll put it to you again...have they ever even been close?
Click to expand...

Of course estimates are off, CBO is required to abide by what Congress says it's going to do, not what it actually does. On health care, CBO has a historical bias to overestimate cost and underestimate savings.

The Gatekeeper - Reason.com

"In July Bruce Vladeck, formerly a top staffer at the Health Care Financing Administration, argued in Roll Call that
 
jhtalisman said:
I am relatively sure you are required by your mortgage company that you have homeowners insurance. If your mortgage is backed by Fannie or Freddie then that is a government mandate.
Click to expand...

Completely different. If you've got a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage than the government basically owns your home as they back the loan. They've obviously got a stake in protecting their property.

jhtalisman said:
Please explain howso in something other than typical right wing opinion. Use facts, which I haven't seen much of in opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...

Not sure. You want me to argue that the current system is broken?

OutofDate1980 said:
That argument was lost in 1792.:smokingsomb:

The Founders
Click to expand...
 
A.Nonymous said:
...Actually it wasn't. As you mentioned the militia act was based on the militia clause, not the commerce clause. They are two completely and totally different legal precedents. They're completely independent from each other. Not mention the fact that the Militia Act was never enforced at the federal level.
Click to expand...

You argued the Fed can't force you to buy a product. I showed that it's been done in the past. Now you argue that the reasons were different. So what, the result is the same.

George Washington enforced it at the Federal level in 1794 during the Whiskey Rebellion.
 
jhtalisman said:
I am relatively sure you are required by your mortgage company that you have homeowners insurance. If your mortgage is backed by Fannie or Freddie then that is a government mandate.
Click to expand...
I still claim it's like auto insurance. Yes, you only purchase it if you own a vehical, but once you continue to drive said vehical, you are FORCED to purchase auto insurance.

About the only time I can think of one not needing medical services is when you die on the way to the hospital.
 
I'm disappointed that president Obama is imposing this tax. He explicitly stated this bill was not a tax. He lied. That's not befitting of the president nor of politicians. I hope nobody kills him because of this. That would be unfortunate.
 
A.Nonymous said:
The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare that requires all individuals to purchase health insurance or face penalties. This is beyond ludicrous. Never before has our government REQUIRED, under penalty of law, that citizens purchase a product.
Click to expand...

Roberts Embraces Right’s Fake History | Consortiumnews

In striking down the Commerce Clause as a justification for the Affordable Care Act, Roberts also parroted the Right’s propaganda line that it is not commerce when an American chooses not to buy health insurance.

However, that ignores the fact that virtually every American is involved in the commerce of medicine from birth and reenters that “market” periodically, especially near the end of life.

The failure of some people to obtain health insurance, to essentially choose to self-insure, is still part of the larger commerce of medicine, which operates across state lines and thus is within the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Yet, Roberts joined his right-wing colleagues in saying that the Commerce Clause only allows regulation of “existing commercial activity” and that the insurance mandate “compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,” a principle that Roberts said could lead the federal government to require other mandatory purchases.

However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four more liberal justices, noted the fallacy of Roberts’s argument. “Unlike the market for almost any other product or service,” she wrote, “the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate.”"
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You argued the Fed can't force you to buy a product. I showed that it's been done in the past. Now you argue that the reasons were different. So what, the result is the same.

George Washington enforced it at the Federal level in 1794 during the Whiskey Rebellion.
Click to expand...

Again, it's completely different. A law based on the militia clause has a completely different precedent than a law based on the commerce clause. The reasoning behind them is irrelevant. The differing legal foundations is what matters.

saptech said:
I still claim it's like auto insurance. Yes, you only purchase it if you own a vehical, but once you continue to drive said vehical, you are FORCED to purchase auto insurance.

About the only time I can think of one not needing medical services is when you die on the way to the hospital.
Click to expand...

You purchase insurance to cover the other guy. Not you. You tbone my car and are only carrying the legally required amount of insurance, and you are up a creek. I'm covered. Your insurance protects the people that you might injure. No one requires you to protect yourself. It's completely different.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Again, it's completely different. A law based on the militia clause has a completely different precedent than a law based on the commerce clause. The reasoning behind them is irrelevant. The differing legal foundations is what matters. ...
Click to expand...

We agree, the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The majority of SC found it constitutional under the congressional power to tax. The result is the same.

​
Do not despair, the jihad SC members lies about Federalist Paper No. 33 are blatant and will be reversed once these Koch prostitutes exit the court.​
 
A.Nonymous said:
Again, it's completely different. A law based on the militia clause has a completely different precedent than a law based on the commerce clause. The reasoning behind them is irrelevant. The differing legal foundations is what matters.



You purchase insurance to cover the other guy. Not you. You tbone my car and are only carrying the legally required amount of insurance, and you are up a creek. I'm covered. Your insurance protects the people that you might injure. No one requires you to protect yourself. It's completely different.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you say that me being sick with a contagious disease that can be prevented or cured, say Meningitis, but I choose not to, be just the same in the sense that I'm spreading misery and death around? Smashing a car into somebody requires you to have insurance to keep them safe from medical expenses, so logically keeping insurance on yourself would keep you from becoming a biohazard to the rest of the world.
 
A.Nonymous said:
The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare that requires all individuals to purchase health insurance or face penalties. This is beyond ludicrous. Never before has our government REQUIRED, under penalty of law, that citizens purchase a product.
Click to expand...

And, when Obama is gone and we have a new leader, it matters very little. Obamacare will likely go away and be replaced with something more logical.
 
saptech said:
I still claim it's like auto insurance. Yes, you only purchase it if you own a vehical, but once you continue to drive said vehical, you are FORCED to purchase auto insurance.

About the only time I can think of one not needing medical services is when you die on the way to the hospital.
Click to expand...

Health insurance will be required by law. Everyone must pay for it at an estimated 2,000.00 to 2,500.00 per year and it will be collected by the IRS.

It would be like every person being required to purchase auto insurance even if they do not drive.
 
jhtalisman said:
I am relatively sure you are required by your mortgage company that you have homeowners insurance. If your mortgage is backed by Fannie or Freddie then that is a government mandate.
Click to expand...

I am not required to purchase any insurance because I presently do not own a home. Health insurance is required by law and everyone must carry it.

It would be like non-home owners being required to carry home insurance.

I do carry insurance to protect my crap. but it is my choice, not the gubbermints.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Obamacare will likely go away and be replaced with something more logical.
Click to expand...
Haven't anything been put in place before now, what makes you think they will after Obama? It seems those in power, or whoever prefer to keep the healthcare the way it always been.

It would be like every person being required to purchase auto insurance even if they do not drive.
Click to expand...
The argument was about being forced to buy insurance, some say you are not forced when buying auto insurance, and I say you are, by law. Of course if you do not own or drive an auto you don't have to have it but if you do, you are forced to have some type of insurance.

The one thing about health insurance, you will get sick at some point in your life, so maybe that is why the law is set to require everyone to have health insurance.

Of course if you die at the same time you get sick before reaching the hospital, then you won't need health insurance. But you may need burial insurance! :rolleyes:
 
It's sort of hypocritical that conservatives complain about the government being involved in the health insurance, but have no problem with the government involvement in crop insurance.

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is a wholly owned government corporation managed by the Risk Management Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. FCIC manages the federal crop insurance program, which provides U.S. farmers and agricultural entities with crop insurance protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom