Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having everyone buy health insurance is one way of leveling the playing field so everyone pays into a system that everyone uses. So if it's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, then let's simply tax everyone for health coverage and provide it universally. I'd much rather pay a tax and get to go to a hospital or doctor anywhere than pay an insurance premium to a profit-driven corporation that treats me like a number and denies me coverage on a heartless whim.
What this judge's decision portends, in my opinion, is a future where health insurance goes away completely. Hopefully it will help pave the way for a single-payer system, which is what a majority of Americans want instead of this regulation-riddled overhaul of our medical establishment, one that is a cash cow for insurance companies. No profit should be derived from the illness of other people.
"Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014."
Kinda like, take the pat down, or pay a fine.
Which was my main issue with the health care reform. That it forces us to get health care or makes us pay a penalty.
I don't have a problem with health care reform, I have a problem when said reform puts MORE penalties upon those who can't afford the healthcare to begin with, and does nothing to try to buffer the cost of healthcare in the interim.
Obama should've gone for single payer instead. Even Cuccinelli admitted single payer was constitutional when he was interviewed on NPR based on the tax clause, although he stated he is opposed to it.
Having everyone buy health insurance is one way of leveling the playing field so everyone pays into a system that everyone uses. So if it's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, then let's simply tax everyone for health coverage and provide it universally. I'd much rather pay a tax and get to go to a hospital or doctor anywhere than pay an insurance premium to a profit-driven corporation that treats me like a number and denies me coverage on a heartless whim.
What this judge's decision portends, in my opinion, is a future where health insurance goes away completely. Hopefully it will help pave the way for a single-payer system, which is what a majority of Americans want instead of this regulation-riddled overhaul of our medical establishment, one that is a cash cow for insurance companies. No profit should be derived from the illness of other people.
Having everyone buy health insurance is one way of leveling the playing field so everyone pays into a system that everyone uses. So if it's unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, then let's simply tax everyone for health coverage and provide it universally. I'd much rather pay a tax and get to go to a hospital or doctor anywhere than pay an insurance premium to a profit-driven corporation that treats me like a number and denies me coverage on a heartless whim.
What this judge's decision portends, in my opinion, is a future where health insurance goes away completely. Hopefully it will help pave the way for a single-payer system, which is what a majority of Americans want instead of this regulation-riddled overhaul of our medical establishment.
Excellent post
The dual purpose of this plan is to:
1. provide insurance coverage for those who aren't covered by an employer's plan, or who can't afford to pay private insurance rates, and
2. make sure that those who CAN afford to buy a plan actually purchase one, instead of foisting their medical expenses off on the rest of us who do have insurance plans..
Which begs the question as to why other developed countries can offer a healthcare system which is broadly equivalent to ours in terms of quality but which costs between two and three times less than ours does.
Where are you getting this?
Haven't you been paying attention to what is happening in the HC systems of the UK, Canada, Cuba and all the rest of the nanny states? They are imploding because of their massive entitlement programs, which include "free" UHC.
I guess me being force to have car insurance is unconstitutional LMAO
Which law passed by Congress requires you to have that car insurance? I think that you have confused federal and state laws but that is nothing new among left leaners.
Haven't you been paying attention to what is happening in the HC systems of the UK, Canada, Cuba and all the rest of the nanny states? They are imploding because of their massive entitlement programs, which include "free" UHC.
The NHS is the *only* part of the UK budget the Tories aren't drastically cutting!
And Canada (which has a right wing government and is more capitalist than the US according to those flaming pinkos at the Heritage Foundation) is doing quite, quite well, as are Australia (also more capitalist than the US and which has had UHC for almost 40 years) and (admittedly social democratic) Germany (which gained back all the jobs it lost during the recession)
Cuba's imploding because it's a dictatorship with a command economy, which no one seriously proposes for the US.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
