Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[GreNME]

Sorry, Newtons Bit, I still think you're full of crap despite you calling what I said a strawman. Just because you word it differently than "OMG SOCIALISM" doesn't make it sound any less so.

However, I'm not going to bother making you argue Constitutional Law on the commerce clause. The reality is that there are plenty of things you're required to pay for or subsidize by federal law that people aren't hopping up and down over. Why not point out where the federal government gets the power to force citizens to pay for the healthcare of soldiers, even after they've fought in a war? What allows the government to tax my property even though I already own it?

The reality is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly and specifically cover any number of things. Instead of playing the stupid "point out to me in the Constitution where it says government can blahblahblah," try pointing out how having UHC is unconstitutional. What clause, amendment, or article in the Constitution is being breached? Can you explain it in non-hyperbolic, rational terms instead of the frothy Libertarian partisan rhetoric? If so, I'd be highly interested to read a good argument against UHC from such a perspective. However, I have yet to see one surface in the nearly-20-years that I've seen it grow in volume in the public discourse.

I'm all (eyes and) ears.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Please read up on the reasons why Social Security was struck down (several times) in the 30's, and why it was eventually upheld in the Supreme Court. You might actually learn something. Wiki is a good place to start, I suggest branching out from there and reading the sources.

History can teach us many things that still apply today. Try learning something about how the USA works today.

 

[GreNME]

Please read up on the reasons why Social Security was struck down (several times) in the 30's, and why it was eventually upheld in the Supreme Court. You might actually learn something. Wiki is a good place to start, I suggest branching out from there and reading the sources.

History can teach us many things that still apply today. Try learning something about how the USA works today.

Um, since Social Security passed and is in use today, your example is poor. Considering I happen to be a pretty big fan of history, I'm familiar and quite aware of the debate. That it lost was a positive, and speaks volumes to how much it seems you are the one who needs to learn about how the modern United States works, and how demanding we judge modern legislation by 200-year-old perspectives is a piss-poor argument.

Got a better argument that doesn't shoot itself in the foot?

ETA: and while the wiki article is accurate enough, it should likely be flagged here and there for partiality checking. Looks like some Ron Paul Libertarians injected a few weasel words here and there.

 

[eeyore1954]

Please stop making crap up. I won't have to purchase any insurance because I have a good enough job where the insurance is rolled in.

Your TP histrionics are lame. Cry me a river.

That is fine for you but what about the person earning a moderate income in a job that doesn't include insurance and they were not buying it because they could not afford it but now either have to or pay a fine.
I suspect these are a major portion of the current uninsured who will now be covered. But i don't mind being shown facts that show my belief to be incorrect.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Please stop making crap up. I won't have to purchase any insurance because I have a good enough job where the insurance is rolled in.

Your TP histrionics are lame. Cry me a river.

You should probably just escort yourself right on out of this thread, because it's plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that you are completely ignorant of the reform being proposed.

If you do not purchase health insurance, you face a fine. Don't pay the fine? You get to go to prison.

If you already have insurance, well then obviously you don't need to buy it because you already have bought it. I really can't believe that concept is something that needed explaining.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Constitution? WHO NEEDS IT!?!?

I've heard people alleging a constitutional issue with the health reform proposal.

Exactly what text of the constitution is being violated and how?

ETA:

If you do not purchase health insurance, you face a fine. Don't pay the fine? You get to go to prison.

If you already have insurance, well then obviously you don't need to buy it because you already have bought it. I really can't believe that concept is something that needed explaining.

Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit the federal government from imposing or enforcing fines? If so, where?

 

[daenku32]

Can we mandate that non-insured cannot get medical help?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can we mandate that non-insured cannot get medical help?

Why would we want to? If they pay the fine for being uninsured, they're entirely welcome to pay the full uninsured price for medical care.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why would we want to? If they pay the fine for being uninsured, they're entirely welcome to pay the full uninsured price for medical care.

They won't pay the uninsured price. They'll pay the premiums (and the co-pays) of whichever health insurance they decide to buy immediately before seeking treatment.

That's the whole point of penalizing people for not getting health insurance. It's to try and keep people from gaming the system. Unfortunately, it's going to be cheaper to pay the fine than get insurance. Thus when the cheats gets sick, he can just buy health insurance and the new Bill requires the health insurance companies to cover him.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit the federal government from imposing or enforcing fines? If so, where?

Congress has specific powers laid out to it under Article I Section 8.

It's pretty clear that Congress can regulate anything to do with commerce or transportation in the first sentence. It's hard to find somewhere where it states that Congress can force* someone to buy a cheeseburger. Yes, I just used a ridiculous analogy to point out how ridiculous Congress is by stating it can force someone to buy something with no exceptions.

It's pretty easy to come up with arguments on how UHC would be allowed. It would definitely be something that would be challenged, however. Making someone buy a cheeseburger? That's hard to argue for.

*And by force, I mean impose a fine if they do not buy it.

 

[GreNME]

That is fine for you but what about the person earning a moderate income in a job that doesn't include insurance and they were not buying it because they could not afford it but now either have to or pay a fine.
I suspect these are a major portion of the current uninsured who will now be covered. But i don't mind being shown facts that show my belief to be incorrect.

You suspect? Care to provide anything in the way of sourced numbers to quantify your suspicion? You say you don't mind being shown the facts to sway your belief, yet you make a claim based on belief without any facts of your own?

How about you first?

-----

You should probably just escort yourself right on out of this thread, because it's plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that you are completely ignorant of the reform being proposed.

If you do not purchase health insurance, you face a fine. Don't pay the fine? You get to go to prison.

If you already have insurance, well then obviously you don't need to buy it because you already have bought it. I really can't believe that concept is something that needed explaining.

You're the one screaming that the gub`mint is forcing me to buy something that it's not. Stop lying with the histrionics and we won't have to play this game of accusing each other of not understanding. Since my work pays for a good portion of the healthcare insurance I get (and subsidies cover another small part of the cost), you're ignoring the fact that this proposal is offering no change to the vast majority of Americans in the country while offering a benefit to the rest.

I understand what's being proposed quite well, and I support the portion of the taxes I'll be paying going into supporting the creation of risk-sharing collectives and basic public option offerings. I support it for the following reasons:

1) The more people who are insured overall will eventually lead to lower insurance costs in general, since the insurance market is based on shared risk and more shared risk over the wider population tends to lower cost. Those who prefer to have more commodity insurance can still opt to spend more.

2) This is one of the few pieces of legislation in a very long time that will actually help the "small business" and the entrepreneurial businesses out there. Considering the leg-work that small businesses have to currently go through to get anything even resembling affordable coverage and the mandate in the current proposals (particularly on the Senate side) for the bulk of that leg-work onus being placed on the providers rather than the small businesses, small businesses and entrepreneurs will actually gain from having this available. Given the highly entrepreneurial nature of the country's economic growth, this has larger benefits to the greater economy as well as the general health of the citizens.

3) We already are forced to pay for healthcare, just not always for ourselves. We not only pay in the form of taxes to fund the healthcare of our military forces or Social Security benefits, but for government workers (including Congress) and employees of local municipalities-- but of you don't belong to any of those groups you don't see the benefits of the money you're already paying to that system. Regardless, since we're already "forced" to pay for healthcare and the nation has yet to implode in a singularity of Socialist Evil, the screeches of the "OMG we're forced to pay for something that we're already forced to pay for" crowd make about as much logical sense as the anti-homosexual-marriage crowd do in terms of explaining a clear and present danger of something that continues to seem more imagined than realistic.

This has been covered over and over in more than one thread on this forum, and it's getting rather old to have to re-explain this every time the same stupid question comes up. If you didn't accept the answer the first dozen times it was explained, then I'm failing to see how continued attempts to explain this are going to be more successful.

 

[GreNME]

I've heard people alleging a constitutional issue with the health reform proposal.

Exactly what text of the constitution is being violated and how?

None, and this debate has already been settled in the SCOTUS for many decades. That's the irrational part of these people claiming "The Constitution" in their opposition.

Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit the federal government from imposing or enforcing fines? If so, where?

The federal government can't levy fines arbitrarily, and the fines have to be laid out clearly in legislation or statute to be enforceable. That's rather vague, though, and a compression of several different sections into a simple explanation. To be more specific with an answer it depends on what kinds of enforcement the federal government has jurisdiction over and whether it's covered in the Constitution. However, again, this has already been settled in terms of Constitutional law with regard to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Congress has specific powers laid out to it under Article I Section 8.

And did you read the very first one of those? It includes " to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Also, the last one (which has the famous "necessary and proper" clause).

However, if you're making a charge that the bill is unconstitutional, the burden is on you to prove a conflict. You can't shift the burden to the other side requiring them to prove there is no constitutional conflict.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They won't pay the uninsured price. They'll pay the premiums (and the co-pays) of whichever health insurance they decide to buy immediately before seeking treatment.

So they pay the fine every year they refuse to get insurance. During those years, they pay in but receive no benefits. (And, for the most part, medical prices for the uninsured are higher since they're not negotiated down by any group.) On the year they decide to get insurance, they'll pay the fine and then pay their premium.

It's still better for us as a whole than if they either paid no fine ever (the current system) and waited until they're older or more likely to need more expensive treatment to buy insurance.

And again, I don't think the fine plus paying-as-you-go is cheaper than paying the premium and whatever out-of-pocket expenses there are under the plan.

I don't think it's the best solution. (A single payer system financed by tax money would be better.) This insurance reform bill, which is more politically feasible than a real overhaul, is meant to achieve some of the same benefits (getting everyone to pay in, even if it's not much).

 

[Newtons Bit]

And did you read the very first one of those? It includes " to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Also, the last one (which has the famous "necessary and proper" clause).

However, if you're making a charge that the bill is unconstitutional, the burden is on you to prove a conflict. You can't shift the burden to the other side requiring them to prove there is no constitutional conflict.

You asked a specific question. I answered your specific question. Congress has limited powers. I see nothing in the granted powers that would allow them to fine me for not buying a cheeseburger.

It is clear from the first sentence that buying me a cheeseburger, if it is necessary for the general welfare, is constitutional.

 

[GreNME]

You asked a specific question. I answered your specific question. Congress has limited powers. I see nothing in the granted powers that would allow them to fine me for not buying a cheeseburger.

It is clear from the first sentence that buying me a cheeseburger, if it is necessary for the general welfare, is constitutional.

You haven't answered a specific question, because as I explained to JoetheJuggler the question wasn't specific enough. Instead, you pigeonholed a vague question into the response of your choosing.

Again, provide the proof of conflict if you believe there's a strong argument against the constitutionality. So far none of the "it's unconstitutional" crowd has been able to do so.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So they pay the fine every year they refuse to get insurance. During those years, they pay in but receive no benefits. (And, for the most part, medical prices for the uninsured are higher since they're not negotiated down by any group.) On the year they decide to get insurance, they'll pay the fine and then pay their premium.

And if they're young and healthy like me, they don't pay anything at all other than the fine. The year they need insurance, they'll pay a prorated fine, the insurance premium and then get the same service everyone else needs for whatever catastrophic injury they just suffered (like from a car wreck).

It's still better for us as a whole than if they either paid no fine ever (the current system) and waited until they're older or more likely to need more expensive treatment to buy insurance.

Then they'll have a hard time getting insurance if cancer suddenly springs up, or be saddled with obscene debt from a catastrophic injury (like from a car wreck).

And again, I don't think the fine plus paying-as-you-go is cheaper than paying the premium and whatever out-of-pocket expenses there are under the plan.

The math is pretty clear. The fine from not buying your own health insurance doesn't exceed the price of normal health insurance/

I don't think it's the best solution. (A single payer system financed by tax money would be better.) This insurance reform bill, which is more politically feasible than a real overhaul, is meant to achieve some of the same benefits (getting everyone to pay in, even if it's not much).

I concur. I'd like a system where the government provides a voucher to everyone to buy their own health insurance. If they don't choose to buy one, they're automatically enrolled in a randomly chosen one in their area. The funding comes directly out of the general budget and is paid for by payroll taxes. This, I think, will give people more choice to their healthcare provider than the current system where most people get health insurance through their employer. Combine this with some free market reforms, such as eliminating the health insurance exemption from anti-trust laws, foster more competition between hospitals and insurance companies and we might have something that lowers everyones cost and grants everyone coverage.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And if they're young and healthy like me, they don't pay anything at all other than the fine.

And their doctor bills.

And under the status quo they don't pay anything (except their doctor bills).

That's why requiring them to pay a fine or buy insurance is an improvement.

If they choose to pay the fine and not get insurance, they will be paying in something and taking out nothing.

ETA:

The math is pretty clear. The fine from not buying your own health insurance doesn't exceed the price of normal health insurance/

But that's not the comparison to make. The fine for refusing to buy insurance (plus the cost of paying the medical bills as an uninsured person) should be compared to the cost of buying insurance under the new system (with subsidies that phase out at about 400% of poverty level, and the removal of anti-trust exemptions encouraging competition, and the insurance exchange that is meant to spread risk out among a wider group of people) plus the out-of-pocket expenses under that plan.

That's the calculation people will be making. The CBO agrees that most people will choose to buy insurance. (I think they estimate it will result in over 96% coverage--that figure is from memory, so I might be wrong.)


You even argue that it will be a poor decision for most people to remain uninsured:

Then they'll have a hard time getting insurance if cancer suddenly springs up, or be saddled with obscene debt from a catastrophic injury (like from a car wreck).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I concur. I'd like a system where the government provides a voucher to everyone to buy their own health insurance. If they don't choose to buy one, they're automatically enrolled in a randomly chosen one in their area. The funding comes directly out of the general budget and is paid for by payroll taxes.

I think a single payer system would be better in that it would result in lower per capita costs nationwide. (The money going to various profit centers that do not provide healthcare would be saved.)

But I agree that a tax-funded system makes more sense. Unfortunately, the nutjobs start crying "socialism" as if providing for the welfare of the people were an unAmerican idea.
______________

At any rate, I still haven't seen anyone make a valid constitutional challenge to the proposed reforms. What I've seen so far is just that "socialism" stuff--as if using that word means that what is proposed MUST be unconstitutional.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And their doctor bills.

And under the status quo they don't pay anything (except their doctor bills).

That's why requiring them to pay a fine or buy insurance is an improvement.

If they choose to pay the fine and not get insurance, they will be paying in something and taking out nothing.

It isn't an improvement because young and healthy people like myself will have a financial incentive to stop paying for expensive group health insurance, pay a less expensive fine and have nothing to worry about if have major health issues arise.