Clubfoothead Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Me choosing not to buy something is not commerce. The Obamacare law is trying to say that it is. Commerce is buying and selling, not just buying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think it would be fine to not have insurance if it was made mandatory that those without insurance could not be treated by any hospital. Do you really think that? I don't think you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Do you really think that? I don't think you do. Why not? People deliberately opting out from the (stupid) insurance system should have no right of treatment, should they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Why not? People deliberately opting out from the (stupid) insurance system should have no right of treatment, should they? So some child who's parents opted out of an insurance system then has the right to not get treated when he or she is in need of it? Or some person who's not economically capable of affording insurance? I just want to understand your position, because it seems pretty binary as stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Commerce is buying and selling, not just buying. Right, but me sitting in my home minding my own business (not engaging in any buying or selling) is not commerce. Obamacare says that they can force me to engage in commerce instead of me choosing not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 So some child who's parents opted out of an insurance system then has the right to not get treated when he or she is in need of it? Or some person who's not economically capable of affording insurance? I just want to understand your position, because it seems pretty binary as stated. Conservatism is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Right, but me sitting in my home minding my own business (not engaging in any buying or selling) is not commerce. Obamacare says that they can force me to engage in commerce instead of me choosing not to. Right but nobody does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Conservatism is a wonderful thing, isn't it? I'm not judging, just trying to understand your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Right, but me sitting in my home minding my own business (not engaging in any buying or selling) is not commerce. Obamacare says that they can force me to engage in commerce instead of me choosing not to. You don't have to buy insurance. You can choose to pay a penalty instead. What you can't do is elect to be an idiot and expect other people to pay for your hospital bills. But that's exactly what tens of millions of people do in this country, and it's asinine to suggest Congress is impotent to address that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No. Nobody is required to buy automobile insurance unless they choose to operate an automobile. With Obamacare, everybody would be required to purchase health insurance period, or be fined/eventually jailed. I wish my wife and I could choose to not drive vehicles. It would save me a lot of money every month. We live in a rural area where mass transit is virtually non-existent so I haven't figured out how to get by without driving. I don't really feel like I have much of a realistic choice on whether I drive or not but I guess when you look at it from a legal standpoint I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm not judging, just trying to understand your position. I'm being entirely literal. One of the points of Obamacare was to insure the uninsured. If that fails due to a legal decision on constitutionality, as conservatives would like, there may well be some constitutional impediment to the directive that no-one can be turned away from an ER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 You don't have to buy insurance. You can choose to pay a penalty instead. What you can't do is elect to be an idiot and expect other people to pay for your hospital bills. But that's exactly what tens of millions of people do in this country, and it's asinine to suggest Congress is impotent to address that. Isn't that exactly what insurance is? Other people paying for other people? All we are asking for now is that healthy people pay those bills. People who do not even need coverage. How does changing who pays bring down the cost of health care? IT DOES NOT!!! Emergency room expenses are NOT what is driving up the cost of health care. A bureaucratic nightmare that takes the consumer completely out of the picture is along with much better and highly technical cures. The emergency room problem will still exist but it just wont take place in the emergency room. Healthy Americans will be the ones paying not just folks who go to the emergency room. I cannot believe how distorted our system is. NOT only that but how distorted the debate is? Folks in this country know absolutely nothing about money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 How does changing who pays bring down the cost of health care? IT DOES NOT!!! You clearly have not read anything about insurance. It operates on pools of risk. One way of driving it through the roof is to reduce the pool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 . People who do not even need coverage. so who doesn't need coverage? unless you are immortal you will need coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 If the gov't can make you buy insurance in case you get sick, then why can't they mandate you have to take vitamins and exercise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Thank god for "activist" judges... Keep it up yankees and left coasters, the south may rise again!!!!! An we'll take 4 of the top 11 economies in the US with us... See you guys try and live without FedEX, UPS, Home Depot, Collard Greens, Peanuts, Citrus Fruits, Cotton, Pine Lumber, Cat Litter, and Gulf Seafood for a while. That, and we'll ship all the Messicans to your neighborhoods, what ya think of that, bunch of commie toad lickers... You forgot Nascar and the hordes of deer on withdrawal from deer cane. The thing is guys: while the rich fight over how to change healthcare, the poor are still going to the ER for free. Edited February 1, 2011 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) If the gov't can make you buy insurance in case you get sick, then why can't they mandate you have to take vitamins and exercise? Sweet Jesus. The government isn't going to MAKE you buy insurance. All they're "making" anyone do is take economic responsibility for their own behavior. I though conservatives liked economic responsibility. Edited February 1, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Sweet Jesus. The government isn't going to MAKE you buy insurance. All they're "making" anyone do is take economic responsibility for their own behavior. I though conservatives liked economically responsibility. They want you to be responsible without facing consequences if you aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I though conservatives liked economically responsibility. Nope. All they can do is carp. Not a positive thought in their heads. Yesterday's freeloaders are today's constitutional knights in armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 1. Isn't that exactly what insurance is? Other people paying for other people? All we are asking for now is that healthy people pay those bills. People who do not even need coverage. How does changing who pays bring down the cost of health care? IT DOES NOT!!! 2. Folks in this country know absolutely nothing about money. 1. No, that's not really how insurance works. Insurance is a contract where one party (the insurer) collects and pools "premiums" into a common fund from people (the insureds) in order to spread and diversify against a stated risk. Even if everyone pays the same premium, people will utilize the pool of funds differently but based upon agreed actuarial probabilities. The larger the pool of insureds, the more evenly the risk is spread, and the lower the premium per insured. 2. You have successfully illustrated that point. You are also missing some larger issues. If currently uninsured people can get routine/preventative medical treatment, and have coverage to treat conditions before they get serious, the total national health care bill goes down. People miss fewer days of work, either for themselves or to take care of sick family members, which is good for the economy. People who actually have to pay for their insurance premiums typically give a damn about how much it costs to provide care in the first place. This is sooooo much more than the 1 dimensional ER situation you imagine. Bottom line, you're going to pay either way - better to pay for the ounce of prevention than the pound of cure... better still if everyone else is pulling at least some of their own weight. There is certainly a lot of OTHER problems in the insurance and health care industries that need fixin. But that's no excuse not to fix the problem of the uninsured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 All they're "making" anyone do is take economic responsibility for their own behavior. Yeah, hussein is just going to make all those people responsible for themselves signing some draconian law. If it's so great, why the 100+ exemptions and counting? Answer that. It is a terrible, terrible law, and it will be gutted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) It is a terrible, terrible law, and it will be gutted. It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But if it get's hillbillies and homos to chat about health care on a fantasy football interwebs, well, it's a start. Edited February 1, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 You clearly have not read anything about insurance. It operates on pools of risk. One way of driving it through the roof is to reduce the pool. Pools of risk... you are restating my point. Do you understand this? Do you understand why the cost goes down with increases in size? I think it is best if you answer this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 It ain't perfect, that's for sure. But if it get's hillbillies and homos to chat about health care on a fantasy football interwebs, well, it's a start. I prefer the term "slack jawed - peckerwood"... Here is one of my minor problems with the law as written. If you do not purchase insurance and you need medical care you will have to pay a penalty, a penalty which is not as punitive as paying premiums each month. Why the hell am I going to pay monthly premiums, for years possibly, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars when I know good and well I'm only going to have to come out of pocket a couple grand for the penalty when I do get sick and that's if I even decide to pay the penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I prefer the term "slack jawed - peckerwood"... Here is one of my minor problems with the law as written. If you do not purchase insurance and you need medical care you will have to pay a penalty, a penalty which is not as punitive as paying premiums each month. Why the hell am I going to pay monthly premiums, for years possibly, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars when I know good and well I'm only going to have to come out of pocket a couple grand for the penalty when I do get sick and that's if I even decide to pay the penalty. This is exactly what I was thinking. And doesn't the above lead to a smaller "pool"?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.