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.
The market in question here isn't healthcare, it's insurance. What you've done is say that everyone gets healthcare, so everyone affects the price of healthcare, and the price of healthcare affects the price of insurance, therefore everyone participates in the insurance market.
But that's purely a subjective interpretation. Affecting the price of insurance doesn't necessarily constitute participation in the insurance market. Fact is, everything affects the price of everything else, it's merely a matter of how many degrees of separation you allow for.
Health care is not about making choices. The concept of "markets" don't apply here. People don't choose to be diagnosed with cancer, and show the willingness to pay the bill in 6-7 digits.
It is why anybody blindly pushing for "let markets decide" is either an idiot or a conniving politician riding high on these idiots.
But Republicans are bitterly opposed to both. Republicans insist that no one has the right to health care.
Correct. You have no right to anything which requires another person to peform a service for you. You do have the right not to be prevented from getting healthcare but that's as far as it goes.
Rights are what you're allowed to do for yourself without undue interference. Rights are not what other people are forced to do for you.
It is a poison pill....I have no doubt because they piggybacked other legislation into the language.
Making it illegal for somebody to NOT have healthcare is fascist and while it may seem trivial to some it really sets the wheels in motion....the bill is without a doubt setting precedent for the domino effect.
Nobody wants to discuss why private healthcare has gotten to this point and why it costs so much. People just want to cede it's for normal reasons and we have to deal with the hand we are dealt so take the stipend.
Congress could create a new green energy law, with a solar panel mandate. Everyone has already entered the housing and energy market, so it's less radical then forcing people to buy health care insurance.
Solar panels are expensive, just like health care, and if everyone were forced to buy solar arrays and put them on their roof, then just think of the cost savings we would enjoy, and benefits in new energy we could all enjoy. Why stop there? We could force everyone to buy an electric car, because that too would bring prices down, and save the planet.
I didn't mean that it is speculative that people without insurance use healthcare. I meant speculative as in the argument itself is speculative, as in conjectural or subjective.
The market in question here isn't healthcare, it's insurance. What you've done is say that everyone gets healthcare, so everyone affects the price of healthcare, and the price of healthcare affects the price of insurance, therefore everyone participates in the insurance market.
But that's purely a subjective interpretation. Affecting the price of insurance doesn't necessarily constitute participation in the insurance market. Fact is, everything affects the price of everything else, it's merely a matter of how many degrees of separation you allow for.
Shoes have shoelaces. Insurance agents wear shoes. Insurance companies employ insurance agents. Companies must compensate agents enough for them to afford shoes. Employee compensation affects the price of premiums that health insurance companies must charge to stay in business. Therefore Obamacare needs to regulate the manufacture and distribution of shoelaces.
This is the problem the justices had with the argument you're using. If you accept that indirectly affecting the price of something constitutes participation in the market of that thing, then there is no limit to where it leads. They kept asking the government's lawyers for what the limiting principle would be, and the government had no answer.
The market is Health Care, not Insurance. The Ins is just a tool to pay for it. In my mind, it would be preferable to have Ins Cos out of the equation. They just tack on an additional cost to getting the care.
When they cannot use the US Constitution to justify ObamaCare, then all they have left are excuses.
And if ObamaCare is ruled constitutional, will you stop shedding those crocodile tears for the US Constitution? I doubt it. Hence my point... let the excuses begin.
Nobody was going to recuse themselves on this one. A) It's just about the biggest case in decades so there is ego involved and B) it is all about politics so the balance of power is critical.
There are excellent arguments for both Kagan and Thomas to recuse themselves. But I don't think anybody seriously expected either of them to do it.
How many football players volunteer to sit out the Superbowl game?
Plus if you sit the case out and your side loses you will be forever tarnished. Do you really think Kagan wants to go down in history as the Obama appointee who recused herself and tipped the balance of power against Obama's signature accomplishment?
Does anyone remember when it wasn't mandatory to have car insurance?
I do (barely)
I think a lot of people that opposed it then are probably pretty comfortable with it now (Especially those who have had a 17 year old kid back into their brand new car, not mentioning any names *me*)
Just saying.
I remember and I'm relative young, in my 30s, but I still don't like the mandate (probably because my kids aren't driving teenagers yet!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Not comparable.
The only car insurance you are required to have is that coverage which protects other people and/or their assets.
Honestly, I still see it as the same thing. States are requiring, like you said, people to purchase something that they may not want to purchase. Health insurance is very similar to auto liability in that if someone with no insurance goes into the hospital, we all pay for it if they are not insured. It is the same argument and if this bill is struck down due to the mandate, I hope that someone will file a suit about the unconstitutionality of the auto mandate as well. I would join it. I haven't been in an accident in over 10 years, yet I still have to pay over $1K of my money per year on insurance. At least with my medical coverage, which is the same as my auto insurance per year, I do get to get new glasses and get physicals to check on my well being, and if I'm sick I can get a perscription. Auto insurance does absolutely nothing for me and hasn't for over a decade.
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.
