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.
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?
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?
"Liberty aside" isn't a hypothetical I'm willing to explore.
It must be redone and rewritten, in a bipartisan matter if it is to be law at all. So that everyone has a say in it if its going to effect ALL of us. This "we have to pass it to see what in it" didn't set very well with the majority of America, in fact it much divided this country and allot of politicians got thrown out on there ars for it..remember that?
The bill will live or die on its constitutionality. I for one do not believe it is constitutional because of the individual mandate. I do believe we need change in our health care system, but this bill is not the change we need.
"Liberty aside" isn't a hypothetical I'm willing to explore.
That pretty much sums it up for me as well. When I read that, I knew at that point the OP was not particularly interested in the overall notion that American's are not interested in government control of their lives.
It's disappointing to me that $$$$$$ so easily supplants the notion of liberty in this nation these days.
The bill will live or die on its constitutionality. I for one do not believe it is constitutional because of the individual mandate. I do believe we need change in our health care system, but this bill is not the change we need.
Agreed. If it is held to be constitutional, there isn't much to stop the government to mandate we buy Chevy Volts. I don't see how the government can force us to buy products from private companies. Please do not use car insurance as an example, no one is forced to drive.
Actually the author is quite wrong, it doesn't demolish anything. One could choose not to be a seaman to avoid having to purchase insurance. The example presented by the author is no different than auto insurance mandate.
The author chose to overlook the argument he is attempting to demolish.
"Thirteen of those officials filed suit in a federal court in Pensacola, Florida, minutes after Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The complaint calls the act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states."
The bill will live or die on its constitutionality. I for one do not believe it is constitutional because of the individual mandate. I do believe we need change in our health care system, but this bill is not the change we need.
Do people get their freedom to choose even if it means that we pay for them since they refuse to purchase health care insurance?
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.
