Individual Healthcare mandate upheld


Last Updated:

  1. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Yup. Apparently it does. We should all be frightened. We could once depend on the SC but apparently, they are ignoring the constitution. If anyone thinks the SC's ruling was a win, they need to read a freaking book.

    The ruling is so very dangerous, I wonder what is next? Some state decides to ban guns and the SC agrees?

    Advertisement
  2. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Is that not completely different? Besides, you dont force people to eat, as they have insincts. The instincts to get healthcare cover aren't as strong :rolleyes:

    Also healthy foods is debatable, its probably better to eat tons of biscuits than to consume so much red meat. Anyway, there are tons of ways to get nutrition reasonably, not so with healthcare. Hopefully some states will see the advantage of mandated healthcare and go the whole hog with full universal healthcare for everyone, but I wouldn't be particularly optimistic.
  3. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    So because people choose to do something that is stupid, they should be penalized?
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    You don't pay the penalty if you have health insurance.

    By your question, you don't have the assets to be self insured, so by 2014 you will need to gain employment by a entity that provides health insurance or pay a penalty.​
  5. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    There's a long history of taxing you for unhealthy consumption, think tobacco, alcohol, etc.​
  6. persim

    persim Well-Known Member

    I have plenty of assets to buy health insurance or self insure. I choose not to purchase health insurance because I see it as an extreme waste of money and pay for exactly what medical services I use in cash.

    So your claim that I could prove financial security and self insure was completely made up.
  7. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    It's FORCING people to pay for a product.
    jhtalisman likes this.
  8. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Great to know you can self insure, get started on the paper work, you will need to transfer assets to a third party and you won't need to worry about a penalty.
  9. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Yes, but you can opt out of those taxes by not buying those products. No one forces you to buy those products. Here the feds are taxing you for NOT buying something.
  10. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    International - Laurie Garrett - The U.S. Promotes Universal Health Care, but Only in Other Countries - The Atlantic

    "The Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act opens the possibility that the United States may now begin to domestically implement policies that foreign aid agencies and the Department of Defense have long supported, both politically and economically, as elements of U.S. foreign policy. It may now be possible to harmonize longstanding U.S. foreign and domestic policies regarding healthcare access for poor and middle class peoples."
  11. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    You can't opt out of services provided by the military, police, fire department, etc., even if you never intend to use the product or have the means to pay.

    Heath care is a product that you will use, regardless of your intent or means to pay.

    One cannot opt out, so the question is if one can be forced to pay within one's means for this product that will be consumed at some point in time.

    The majority position of S.C. is that it is constitutional, but five of the Justices agreed it was not justified under the Commerce Clause.​
  12. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    You must have plenty of money. I hope all the times you've been to the hospital/doctor, things were minor.

    What happens if you have a serious situation, such as emergency surgery, and spend 30 days or more in hospital? What happens if you need important medical attention for the rest of your life? Will you continue to be able to pay yourself?

    I'm just curious.
    Gmash likes this.
  14. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    It's still some form of gov't FORCING you to buy it, like it or not.
  15. metz65

    metz65 Member

    Before this law passed you paid more for medical care to take care of all the freeloaders.

    Now you will pay more for your insurance to pay for the freeloaders to have insurance.
  16. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    No, it's not. If I don't own a car I'm not forced to buy car insurance.
  17. metz65

    metz65 Member

    Just Waite, at the present course our government is on you may be forced to even if you don't own a car. That way the freeloading ones who don't have it will be able to have it subsidized and handed to them.
  18. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Self insuring is not an adequate solution for 90%+ of the population, especially when it would seem the vast majority of self insuring folks in the US are the poorest, and when they do find themselves ill they do not have the liquid assets to cover the costs of treatment and are forced to sell their home, car, etc. Certainly not a workable situation for a developed economy, it also increases dependence on charity, reduces quality of life, decreases worker productivity, increases cost to the state, etc.

    The way I see it, everyone should have to take out their own insurance, insurance should be regulated extensively by the state, and premiums should be subsidised for those on lower incomes.
  19. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Damn freeloaders! Why dont they just earn more despite the fact that wages have stagnated for 30 years??
  20. metz65

    metz65 Member

    More excuses less personal responsibility.
  21. smb282

    smb282 New Member

    You're not FORCED to do anything...someone made a comment about how most haven't read the law...I guess that includes everyone in this thread, too? Read the law---neither the government nor any of its agents or potential contractors have ANY method, legal means nor provision whatsoever to collect on the "fine" for not buying insurance. Not only is it a very small fee for almost all Americans (less than $100 in most cases), but the law specifically states that the gov't can't do anything to collect if you don't pay...that means no leins, no suing, no nothing. The law specifically outlaws them from using any of the methods that the IRS and other public and private entities use to collect delinquent fines and fees. You can scoff at the "fine" for not buying insurance and do so with total impunity.

    Where I come from (the English-speaking, politically objective/pragmatic and rationally thinking world), that's not much of a MANDATE at all, now is it? You don't want to buy insurance? So don't. Nothing will happen to you as a result of the government...you'll just be subject to your own stupidity and/or lack of financial resources when you inevitably get sick.

    People need to stop misrepresenting the truth...anyone bitching about the fake mandate is probably sharing a damaged brain with Glenn Beck. We pay nearly twice as much for healthcare in the US compared to every other industrialized 1st-world country, and yet tens of millions are un- or under-insured. Those people don't go to the doctor at all..if they have to, they go to the emergency room--and then the rest of us subsidize it, and of course E-room treatment is the most expensive form of care of all.

    Anything that gets a large chunk of those folks getting preventative care instead of waiting till defcon 5 and going to the emergency room with no insurance is at least a step in the right direction.
  22. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Well I guess you could say that many of those people should stop voting against their interests, I'm not sure where else personal responsibility comes into it.
  23. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    None of this is true. The fine goes up to $695 in 2017 (unless I'm mistaken) so it is a significant fine. Plus, the IRS is given the ability to collect said fine. So yes, the feds have the ability to collect it.

    My source - http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/29/pf/taxes/health_insurance_mandate/

    Edit: I was wrong about the fine. By 2016, the penalty is $2085 per family or 2.5% annual income whichever is greater. For a single adult it's $625.
  24. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    The analogy to car insurance fails. Your body is not a car.

    Hospitals must treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

    The mandate will lower costs to those who have health insurance.​
    One, by treating people prior cost escalation.​
    Two, by making those that can afford insurance, but gambled and lost, pay, rather than filing for bankruptcy.​
  25. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member


    At a certain point it does. If you don't own a car you will not need auto insurance.
    If you don't have health insurance, the only way you won't need medical attention is if you die before reaching the hospital.

    @metz65, what happens to the thousands, if not millions, who have been laid off their jobs and lost their insurance and can't afford to pay? Are they freeloaders?

Share This Page