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.
Do people get their freedom to choose even if it means that we pay for them since they refuse to purchase health care insurance?
Yes, if that, as a society, is what we choose to do. Our choices are to pay for them or not pay for them. Not to force every man woman and child in the country to purchase a product from private companies.
Do people get their freedom to choose even if it means that we pay for them since they refuse to purchase health care insurance?
Yes... The treating facility is free to file suit to obtain their financial restitution. If they are illegal, then why are we treating them in the first place? Perhaps this needs addressed. If they are impovrished then they recieve government assistance as it stands now.
[] I predict it will pass "muster" and be deemed "constitutional".
Reasons:
1. State of emergency, since 1933, has been used to bypass / abridge constitutional limitations.
2. Gubmint needs the cash.
3. Judges want to avoid "early retirement".
[] I predict it will pass "muster" and be deemed "constitutional".
Reasons:
1. State of emergency, since 1933, has been used to bypass / abridge constitutional limitations.
2. Gubmint needs the cash.
3. Judges want to avoid "early retirement".
I hope in this instance you're wrong...This is a very slippery slope. If it passes, then what can the government not tell us we must do or buy?
This law will shape the future of our country. The supreme court has dedicated 3 full days to hear the arguments. The last time this happened was 1966 in the challenge to Voting Rights Act which supported fair elections. It should be clock stopping.
As an individual who has worked in health care for thirty years the most recent twenty as an emergency and intensive care nurse I would like to convey how important this law is for our country.
People object to it on the grounds that it forces people to pay for insurance or to pay for opting out. Most patients who are treated in the emergency room and intensive care and cost you and I millions upon billions. Most of these people don not have any insurance so we pay for it and the hospitals lose money. Our insurance costs go up. That is not the function of the law but the insurance companies covering their costs.
If the law is upheld the uninsured must pay for insurance. They must contribute. Liberty aside, the idea that someone can be reckless enough to drive without insurance is akin to this. I take care of hundreds of people who don't give a damn about your bill or your costs. They feel entitled to not pay. This law cures that ill over time and places these people in front of a doctor. Not only must they contribute but they must work with a doctor to control their bad habits which lead them to the ER and the ICU..for weeks.
So the person who sees this law as governmental control of liberty is the exception and the argument while holding water holds only a few drops. If you don't want to buy insurance who will pay for you when you have a crash, or a heart attack? Thats right. The price for your freedom is costing me and others. This laws promotes a healthy population. If you want your complete freedom you had better have the funds to pay for care.
This law fixes the issues. It really does and over time will make us a stronger nation.
If you are going to respond try to form an argument not just a label. K?
But it quite different than driving a car because that doies not mandate insurnace if one choices not to drive.It also is state laws on the terms of licensing;not federal. It causes at most a person to lose his/her license. It There are alots of examples . But in the end we will be paying for many of those that do not have insurance. 15 million will be forced on to medicaidits estimated. Between 2014 ans 2017 the federal government will fund the increases in state cost. Starting in 2017 that increase will be states funded. That is why Nelsen(D) of Nebraska got a exception for his state on the cost increases in 2017.He bascially said it would bankrupt his state. Besides that others that are allowed to enter the pool(Those placed in medicaid have no choice) will in many cases get federal assistance in payig their premuims. I know of no state that has entitlement for auto insurance. So most of thsoe not having inxcruance now will be subsidised by taxpayers in the end or have huge increases i states taxes to pay the state portiton. Remmeebr that it was Obama who in debatig hialry Clinton said that mandated ciooverage would not work because its impossible to enforce really. To enforce would take a huge agency to even locate the people with in the US.Now if you pay attention mnay employers are saying that they may actaully pay the fines and drop employees because it cheaper and eaier to mnaage. The bill alos allows emplyers alot fo leway to chnage covergae to make employeees pay more because fo increased mandates cost.Mnay think that in the end all willbe buyign i the stae pools as empoloyers drop covergae and pay the fine caost which is pretty cheap compared to the average of 13000 a year average spent by employers by the congressional; budget office.
Yes, if that, as a society, is what we choose to do. Our choices are to pay for them or not pay for them. Not to force every man woman and child in the country to purchase a product from private companies.
I don't have the choice to not pay for them. Do you?
But it quite different than driving a car because that doies not mandate insurnace if one choices not to drive.It also is state laws on the terms of licensing;not federal. It causes at most a person to lose his/her license. It There are alots of examples . But in the end we will be paying for many of those that do not have insurance. 15 million will be forced on to medicaidits estimated. Between 2014 ans 2017 the federal government will fund the increases in state cost. Starting in 2017 that increase will be states funded. That is why Nelsen(D) of Nebraska got a exception for his state on the cost increases in 2017.He bascially said it would bankrupt his state. Besides that others that are allowed to enter the pool(Those placed in medicaid have no choice) will in many cases get federal assistance in payig their premuims. I know of no state that has entitlement for auto insurance. So most of thsoe not having inxcruance now will be subsidised by taxpayers in the end or have huge increases i states taxes to pay the state portiton. Remmeebr that it was Obama who in debatig hialry Clinton said that mandated ciooverage would not work because its impossible to enforce really. To enforce would take a huge agency to even locate the people with in the US.Now if you pay attention mnay employers are saying that they may actaully pay the fines and drop employees because it cheaper and eaier to mnaage. The bill alos allows emplyers alot fo leway to chnage covergae to make employeees pay more because fo increased mandates cost.Mnay think that in the end all willbe buyign i the stae pools as empoloyers drop covergae and pay the fine caost which is pretty cheap compared to the average of 13000 a year average spent by employers by the congressional; budget office.
If you don't drive fine. But every individual will require medical treatment at one point in time.
None of this really matters... All that matters is whether or not the SCOTUS rules in accordance with the constitution or not.. If it does, then the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional and basically all of Obamacare goes down in flames. Without the individual mandate there is no Obamacare.
Most of these people don not have any insurance so we pay for it and the hospitals lose money. Our insurance costs go up. That is not the function of the law but the insurance companies covering their costs.
If the law is upheld the uninsured must pay for insurance. They must contribute.
Really? Most people that do not have insurance now can't afford it. How is it you expect them to magically afford it because of this law?
Beyond that even if they could pay even those paying for insurance now DO NOT have to buy insurance. The fine for not having it will be collected from your tax refund. Technically someone that has insurance now could drop their insurance, adjust their withholding so there is nothing to collect from and be confident they can get insurance only when they need it since they can't be rejected. It's not going to take to long for those that want to avoid paying for it or can't pay for it to figure this out.
Quote:
Liberty aside, ....... but they must work with a doctor to control their bad habits which lead them to the ER and the ICU..for weeks.
Those two thoughts in the same paragraph is a scary idea in itself.
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.
