• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

Nope. it is happening right now. Go to your er. The uninsured are being treated. As a group, they are engaged in commerce rigth now, consuming and passing on the cost to all of those responsible enough to be insured.




How can people who are using hospitals/doctors, and not paying for these services, be engaged in commerce?

Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary

"The buying and selling of goods, especially on a large scale, as between cities or nations."
 
This is a different argument (which is, of course, the only avenue you had to do down), and it has its own failing -- "the uninsured" isn't an identifiable person. This mandate is against individuals, not groups or statistics.

But to indulge some of your spaghetti, as you've pretty much given up on the logical point:

Tell me . . . how do you know that an such uninsured 20-something won't have insurance or other means to pay when the time comes to seek medical care? Answer: you don't. Your "will do = is doing" argument fails on that ground alone as a practical argument, even if it wasn't logically idiotic.

Moreover, the type of person most likely to remain uninsured when the time comes to seek medical care -- the low-income -- are exempted by this mandate, so as a practical argument it fails pretty miserably, too.

But as I said, that's just your spaghetti. Your logical argument continues to be vapid.

No, it is the same argument. Like I said, you really did not understand it. But instead of asking questions, you leap to the insult.

And yes, they are an identifiable group. The insured or not required to get insurance as they are insured.

And we do have statistics that show us as a group they do show up injured and ill and do not have the means to pay for it. And don't pay for it. It isn't like we don't have the problem right before us right now. So, effectively it is being done right now. I have links above showing just that.

And actually the uninsured do include people who work and are capable and who still cannot afford the bills they incur. We have to have some method of dealing with this. Like has been repeated, the public option would have been better and more effective. And a single payer system even more effective than the public option. But the uninsured are right now being treated, and passing that cost on to us.
 
Nope. it is happening right now. Go to your er. The uninsured are being treated. As a group, they are engaged in commerce rigth now, consuming and passing on the cost to all of those responsible enough to be insured.

Many of the uninsured don't have the cash for health insurance. But They will continue to bill the collective for their care and it will remain this way under any liberal scheme.

The problem is that we entitle and provide people with any and all costly needed care whether they have anything to trade for it or not. IOW, the main problem is that these people get care.
 
They are receiving a service and we are paying for it. As the consumer of the service, they are engaged. As are we as the actual payers.

But your question is a better question. ;)

What you call commerce is what I call freeloading. If you're not paying for a service and someone else is paying for you, you are not involved with any type of commerce. You haven't sold or bought anything. You've taken advantage of some unsuspecting sap.
 
Many of the uninsured don't have the cash for health insurance. But They will continue to bill the collective for their care and it will remain this way under any liberal scheme.

The problem is that we entitle and provide people with any and all costly needed care whether they have anything to trade for it or not. IOW, the main problem is that these people get care.

This is the crux of the issue. You have to be willing to turn people away, even in emergency situations. If we will not do that, we have no real option but to plan how to pay for it more effectively than we are.

However, I will say this. I don't see the issue as any more of an entitlement as I see the fire department. Public health overall is a public concern. There are limits as to what falls under that. Brest enhancement, for example, wouldn't. But our public health does effect all of us in some way, both small and large. I see the issue as problem solving and not entitlement. I also see medicine more like fire fighting and not widget selling.
 
What you call commerce is what I call freeloading. If you're not paying for a service and someone else is paying for you, you are not involved with any type of commerce. You haven't sold or bought anything. You've taken advantage of some unsuspecting sap.

You may attach that term if it makes you feel better, but by your definition, a product, a service, is being sold and paid for. the uninsured are the consumer and we in one way or another are the payer.
 
This is the crux of the issue. You have to be willing to turn people away, even in emergency situations.

Yep.

If we will not do that, we have no real option but to plan how to pay for it more effectively than we are.

If health care is accessible to everybody regardless of cost or ability to pay, it doesn't matter HOW we pay for it collectively, it's all the same. Whoever has any money has to be forced, and whoever doesn't continues to get a free ride.

However, I will say this. I don't see the issue as any more of an entitlement as I see the fire department.

Fire protection is specific and rare. Illness and death are universal inevitabilities with potentially unlimited costs.

I see the issue as problem solving and not entitlement. I also see medicine more like fire fighting and not widget selling.

It's entitlement whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. I'm entitled to whatever healthcare I need, whether I can pay for it or not. And so is everyone else. There's no way to contain costs in that type of system.
 
Last edited:
If health care is accessible to everybody regardless of cost, it doesn't matter HOW we pay for it, it's all the same. Whoever has any money has to be forced, and whoever doesn't continues to get a free ride.

I would say it does matter. Right now there is little oversight and no certainty that the price hikes are equal to the cost.

And forced is an odd word. if we agree though our legislators, losing doesn't equal being forced. It is the method by which we are governed.

Fire protection is specific and rare. Illness and death are universal inevitabilities with potentially unlimited costs.

I think we can be specific (and still not be a death panel). And we will pay that cost one way or another. Seems prudent, just like with fire, that we plan for that.

It's entitlement whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. I'm entitled to whatever healthcare I need, whether I can pay for it or not. And so is everyone else. There's no way to contain costs in that type of system.

No. We've merely agreed collectively to tackle that area of concern and solve that problem. The basis for this is not that all are entitled, but that the problem effects enough that some collective action warrants consideration.
 
You may attach that term if it makes you feel better, but by your definition, a product, a service, is being sold and paid for. the uninsured are the consumer and we in one way or another are the payer.

No it doesn't make me feel better. By definition the person(s) paying for the service are involved in commerce. The person receiving the service are doing so with the knowledge they are not going to pay for the service and there's a name for that too. And because "everyone is doing it", doesn't make it acceptable or commerce.
 
What you call commerce is what I call freeloading. If you're not paying for a service and someone else is paying for you, you are not involved with any type of commerce. You haven't sold or bought anything. You've taken advantage of some unsuspecting sap.
I can understand some guy making minimum wage needing help. What bothers me is when the freeloader is some guy making $30k/yr but thinks he's ****ing Superman so it can't happen to him. We should let those bastards rot in the gutter if they get sick or injured until someone coughs up the cash for their treatment.
 
Thats very nice spin... but it will basically overturn the crown jewel of President Obama's first term. That will have a domino effect. Now while disneydude blames "getting stuck with" the mandate and blames it on blue-dogs and Republicans, the fact is Pelosi and Reid were the architects of this bill and they saw this as the best option to get passed by Congress. No one twisted Pelosi or Reid or Obama's arm. Obama gave this to his Democratic friends and was instrubmental in it's crafting as well as it's support - remember he supported this bill for over a year. The blame stuff doesn't flush nor does minimizing the political fallout of this being overturned.

Of course...it *was* the conservative method of fixing healthcare and if it's struck down it will in the short term negatively impact Democrats. Democrats own the Private Mandate because....like you said they are the one's that passed it. If it's found unconstitutional though...that does mean it's officially off the table in fixing long term healthcare costs which will eventually have to be taken care of.

I'm not pushing blame or trying to spin it. It will be a problem for Democrats. In the longer run though...long term healthcare costs aren't fixed and the only real private market solution (if struck down by the courts) is unconstitutional. All it means is that any serious large scale improving of healthcare will look like single payer system. There's really no other routes to go.

What this will do is make it very difficult for people and States to understand what they need to do. The question then quickly becomes when Congress goes back to square one and either saves portions of the bill or starts over, how and what will it look like? Will it get passed by Congress? Polarization will be at an all time high if it's struck down in June and nothing will happen until after the election. So we're looking at 2013 before this is even broached again, unless some emergency provisions are put in place so the entire health care system doesn't collapse... what it will do is provide yet another opportunity for American citizens to vote for Congressional membership who will, hopefully, put in place a revised health care system that doesn't bankrupt us and that can cover the most amount of people without forcing people to purchase said insurance.

I just don't see how that's possible. Things like "high risk pools" or "selling across state lines" or even the conservative idea of limiting what you can sue doctors work at the margins at best. Where do you go from there? That does virtually nothing to fix long term healthcare costs. The private mandate was the one "free market" way of actually increasing the risk pool and holding down premium costs. I know I hope I don't have to purchase insurance as an individual anytime soon because it's going to get brutal.
 
I can understand some guy making minimum wage needing help. What bothers me is when the freeloader is some guy making $30k/yr but thinks he's ****ing Superman so it can't happen to him. We should let those bastards rot in the gutter if they get sick or injured until someone coughs up the cash for their treatment.

Well if this passes they will pay along with everyone else.
 
No it doesn't make me feel better. By definition the person(s) paying for the service are involved in commerce. The person receiving the service are doing so with the knowledge they are not going to pay for the service and there's a name for that too. And because "everyone is doing it", doesn't make it acceptable or commerce.

As it is being consumed and paid for makes it commerce. And without the uninsured consuming, there is no commerce.
 
Oh...buying and selling is going on....it's just those with insurance doing the buying, the hospitals doing the selling, and the uninsured gets the goods.

Really? Really? I can't believe I totally missed that (smacks forehead and says :doh).
 
As it is being consumed and paid for makes it commerce. And without the uninsured consuming, there is no commerce.

And without the unspecting sap who's paying, it's called theft.
 
Well if this passes they will pay along with everyone else.
And if it doesn't we should let 'em rot in the gutters. A few weeks of that and people will understand the issue much better.
 
Don't know and don't care since I'm none of those - and all of them, depending on the topic. :shrug:

Well, then allow me to state that my understanding is they didn't like it and thought it was unconstitutional. They were right.
 
In case those of you haven't noticed. If you have private health insurance and you have to use it. You are also paying for all who don't have it.

Ever had to go to an overnight plus stay at a hospital? The bill can range in the thousands for one night...even if just for observation and minor treatment. Why? Insurance companies are being charged (thus we as persons who pay premiums - or companies who pays premiums, which ultimately affect your pay) cover all who don't have insurance and don't have the financial means to pay.

Plus, most counties charge taxes for County Services for Indigent Care.

Hospitals and medical providers are gonna get theirs regardless.

But the worst problem of all? Health Insurance companies.

BTW...the top 5 health insurance companies (often via subsidiary companies) contract with government to manage Medicare and Medicaid claims. What's the big deal? They charge large sums to the government to handle these health care claims. It helps buffer the outgo on private claims paid out. So What? All who have health insurance is already paying - for those who don't. Insurance companies profit from both the private and public sector.

People will cry...BUT LOOK AT THIS RESOURCE: It clearly shows that insurance companies are only netting 2 to 5%, which is way less that of other types of corporations. Yeah, right. Nonsense. It's all in how they present the accounting numbers.

There's so many ways that they legally reduce the bottom line and make tons of profit.

So how do insurance companies make money? Quite a few ways.

  • By insuring you, "they contend" that they are gambling that something will not happen. When you pay them premiums - it's also with the hope that something doesn't happen.

The more realistic way of looking at health insurance companies is something like a Casino in Las Vegas. They're gambling on the odds that your not going to win and we know that the house usually wins in Las Vegas. All premiums are designed by actuaries and the odds that something will happen.

  • A portion of premiums collected are invested in the stock market, in precious metals, they're invested in other businesses. They might even be invested in other insurance companies.

Inside Dope on Health Insurance Companies according to Wendell Potter, Former CEO for Cigna Insurance Company

One of the big rules of capitalism...Competition! Not so with health insurance companies.Health Insurance Companies are EXEMPT from the Sherman Antitrust Act. That means that Health Insurance Companies are pretty much a monopoly. Each state has primary companies. There's no Interstate competition. There's no global competition. Actually, there's no Intrastate competition to speak of.

But the insurers cry and complain that their critics don't understand their business practices.

The industry is driven by "two key figures:

1) Earnings per share

2) The medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."


The best way to drive down "medical-loss" is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. The insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies.

1) "POLICY RESCISSION" They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. At a recent hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

2) "PURGING." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases."

The reason Insurance Companies generally like markets is - that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But you won't ever see a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly!

The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. STOCKHOLDERS LOVE MONOPOLIES!
 
Anyone but me forget that the mandate was originally a conservative proposal that was justified on the basis of personal responsibility?

As I have said, it doesn't matter which 'side' a bad and unconstitutional idea comes from. It is bad either way.

At least many of them tend to mistake "good idea" (or their perception of it) as being the same as "constitutional."

It appears to be appeals to emotion as basis for what goverment can and can not do, nothing more.
 
Well, then allow me to state that my understanding is they didn't like it and thought it was unconstitutional. They were right.
Don't care - preach somewhere else. :yawn:
 
Don't care - preach somewhere else. :yawn:

Then why bother bringing up which party brought up the idea? Because you care, as long as it supports your conclusion.

Some members on both sides of the debate have swapped their position. Bringing up one, while thinking the other is unimportant - results in you comping off as a political hack.
 
Latest from the Supremes

SCOTUSblog

Here is the last sentence of the summary.

"All that said, the challengers have more to cheer about tonight than does the administration, which needs one more vote and has at best two potential fifth votes, both of whom seemed deeply skeptical of the individual mandate’s constitutionality today."

They thought they did when the case was before the DC Appellate Court too, and the same kinds of arguments were made by those judges that are being made at SCOTUS. In the end, it was Conservative judge and Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman who cast the deciding vote upholding Obamacare.

Frankly, this could go either way, and if Kennedy takes the position that uninsured people seeking medical treatment in emergency rooms constitutes the initiation of commerce by them, then Obamacare gets upheld. The thinking is that, if you engage in commerce, then you MUST pay for what you purchase, rather than steal it. And make no doubt about it - When the uninsured go into the emergency room for treatment, they ARE purchasing a service, since they do receive a bill afterwards. Therefore, they are engaging in commerce. I cannot make any kind of prediction except that, if Kennedy makes this assumption, he may even pull Chief Justice Roberts to the side of upholding Obamacare too, making it a 6-3 decision. But that is a mighty BIG if.

So what will be the outcome? I haven't a freakin' clue. LOL.
 
Last edited:
What is scary beyond imagination is that the entire bill will be decided by one man.

The framers intended the Supreme Court to be an unbiased third party, yet we have one justice who basically wrote the damn thing, another who considers our constitution inferior to that of South Africa, that will be voting on this.

The bill is illegal, plain and simple. Liberals can hate the Constitution to its core, but it was written solely to protect our liberties from the exact likes of you.

Our second Civil War will be fought over these very issues in short order, I'm sad to say.
 
Back
Top Bottom