• 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

That's true, but that is also what makes it work. You CAN opt out of driving. You CANNOT opt out of healthcare. Otherwise, the argument is the same, the logic the same. The need even greater with healthcare as no one can not be treated for healthcare.

I disagree. The rational behind requiring drivers insurance is that if you cause harm to another person or their property (vehicle in most cases) you will be able to pay for the damages and make restitution. Mandating health insurance would be forcing someone to buy a product that the government deems is necessary for your personal well-being. The fact that driving is not a right also makes things different. A state issues a license based on a driver's proven abilities to properly operate a vehicle. The state government can remove you license to drive if you violate law. The ability to drive is not a Constitutionally defined right, a state can remove it. Being alive is a right under the constitution and I think as such the federal government (among other reasons) should not be able to mandate that all living individuals buy private health insurance or face a fine.
 
We have statistical evidence, which has been linked, showing uninsured people do engage these services, are treated, and can't pay for it. This is a fact.

By definition, they are not engaging in commerce, they are engaging in theft.
 
I disagree. The rational behind requiring drivers insurance is that if you cause harm to another person or their property (vehicle in most cases) you will be able to pay for the damages and make restitution. Mandating health insurance would be forcing someone to buy a product that the government deems is necessary for your personal well-being.

That is not what the mandate is about. It is designed to prevent freeloaders from sponging off the system until they get sick and then purchasing insurance to cover their illness. In other words, it's there to protect those who are responsible and who buy their own insurance -- just like auto insurance. The reason that auto insurance is mandatory is that, if it wasn't, the cost of insurance would be too high. Exactly the same has health insurance mandate.
 
Last edited:
Actually, no.

The mandate is designed to offset premiums/costs which would otherwise skyrocket when insurance companies are forced to take on all comers without a risk analysis. It has nothing to do with "freeloaders."

That's why it's in the law. And that's what everyone says the tragedy will be if it's struck.
 
Actually you have a very good reason to believe it: I told you I didn't.

And you say a lot of things which have little in common with truth.
 
Actually, no.

The mandate is designed to offset premiums/costs which would otherwise skyrocket when insurance companies are forced to take on all comers without a risk analysis. It has nothing to do with "freeloaders."

That's why it's in the law. And that's what everyone says the tragedy will be if it's struck.
You show that you don't understand "adverse selection" and its application to insurance pools. It is not sick people that avoid purchasing health insurance, it is healthy ones that can get away without it.
 
I disagree. The rational behind requiring drivers insurance is that if you cause harm to another person or their property (vehicle in most cases) you will be able to pay for the damages and make restitution. Mandating health insurance would be forcing someone to buy a product that the government deems is necessary for your personal well-being. The fact that driving is not a right also makes things different. A state issues a license based on a driver's proven abilities to properly operate a vehicle. The state government can remove you license to drive if you violate law. The ability to drive is not a Constitutionally defined right, a state can remove it. Being alive is a right under the constitution and I think as such the federal government (among other reasons) should not be able to mandate that all living individuals buy private health insurance or face a fine.


Yes, harm to others. You don't think passing on someone's costs is harm to others? It harms to have to have to pay $16 dollars for a bandaid just as surely as it costs me to pay for damage someone did to my car. And neither is a right (who brought rights into this? ). Both move the liability from one person to another without a mandate on what you need to have.
 
By definition, they are not engaging in commerce, they are engaging in theft.

:roll: The fact remains, the will be treated, a cost will need to be paid, and others will pay it one way or another.
 
Actually, no.

The mandate is designed to offset premiums/costs which would otherwise skyrocket when insurance companies are forced to take on all comers without a risk analysis. It has nothing to do with "freeloaders."

That's why it's in the law. And that's what everyone says the tragedy will be if it's struck.


Several States already run high risk pools. And in the State of Texas the insurance companies have to cover the losses the high risk pool incurs.
 
You show that you don't understand "adverse selection" and its application to insurance pools. It is not sick people that avoid purchasing health insurance, it is healthy ones that can get away without it.

Hmmm. If they can "get away with it," then so much for the idea that they're "freeloaders" who are "already engaged."

Not that this post doesn't reinforce what I said, anyway.
 
Several States already run high risk pools. And in the State of Texas the insurance companies have to cover the losses the high risk pool incurs.

Great. So?
 
Actually, no.

The mandate is designed to offset premiums/costs which would otherwise skyrocket when insurance companies are forced to take on all comers without a risk analysis. It has nothing to do with "freeloaders."

That's why it's in the law. And that's what everyone says the tragedy will be if it's struck.

Yes, that is part of the purpose (and of course why it is in effect a tax), but the purpose is also to encourage people to buy insurance and thus reduce the number of freeloaders.

btw, do you have a cite for the above quote?
 
And you say a lot of things which have little in common with truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it kicked a 2X4 up your ass.
 
Hmmm. If they can "get away with it," then so much for the idea that they're "freeloaders" who are "already engaged."

Not that this post doesn't reinforce what I said, anyway.

Yeah, just like a murderer who gets away with it isn't really a murderer. :roll:
 
Last edited:
:roll: The fact remains, the will be treated, a cost will need to be paid, and others will pay it one way or another.

Then by your logic, those 'others' should just pay more now?
 
Yes, that is part of the purpose (and of course why it is in effect a tax), but the purpose is also to encourage people to buy insurance and thus reduce the number of freeloaders.

Encourage huh?

So it's obviously not an income tax, so it's... a direct tax? Is this direct tax tied to population? Or a value of property? No? It's tied to a condition of a behavior/activity?

That type of tax is prohibited by the Constitution.
 
Yeah, just like a murderer who gets away with it isn't really a murderer. :roll:

Except that "get away with it" means "not get sick and need care," not get away with freeloading. That's the only way it makes sense in his post.
 
Last edited:
You wouldn't know the truth if it kicked a 2X4 up your ass.

Oh, please. You know how much you weasel and misrepresent things. There's no way you don't. So no, I don't find your word on your own activity terribly credible.
 
Except that "get away with it" means "not get sick and need care," not get away with freeloading. That's the only way it makes sense in his post.
His post ...
You show that you don't understand "adverse selection" and its application to insurance pools. It is not sick people that avoid purchasing health insurance, it is healthy ones that can get away without it.
... which I interpret to mean get away without "health insurance". That doesn't mean that group never has heath problems, it means if they're healthy (i.e., young people with no major conditions) they don't buy insurance. Whether they end up being "freeloaders" or not is a matter of statistics. Statistically, some of those people will get seriously ill, have accidents, and/or develop a major medical condition like diabetes or high blood pressure and be unable to pay for treatment out-of-pocket.
 
The car insurance argument really isn't equatable. You are only forced to buy car insurance if you drive a car (A license to drive a car is a state issued privilege based on an individuals abilities, this license can be revoked if the law is broken). Every living adult woukd be forced to buy health insurance. Driving is not a right, living is. States can regulate the legality of driving and mandate that people have insurance in order to cover damages to another person's vehicle, the governemt is wanting to force all living adults to purchase a product or be fined.

I'm afraid the insurance thing; which I'm sure has variations around the country is a precendent of exactly what the issue is: a government mandate to purchase. I'll be very surprised if tha issue is not brought up.
 
Oh, please. You know how much you weasel and misrepresent things. There's no way you don't. So no, I don't find your word on your own activity terribly credible.

I know that constantly throw around idiotic accusations that you can never ever back up, which is a lovely quality to have.
 
I'm afraid the insurance thing; which I'm sure has variations around the country is a precendent of exactly what the issue is: a government mandate to purchase. I'll be very surprised if tha issue is not brought up.


Only comparable if HC is kicked back to the states where it belongs.


j-mac
 
His post ...
... which I interpret to mean get away without "health insurance". That doesn't mean that group never has heath problems, it means if they're healthy (i.e., young people with no major conditions) they don't buy insurance. Whether they end up being "freeloaders" or not is a matter of statistics. Statistically, some of those people will get seriously ill, have accidents, and/or develop a major medical condition like diabetes or high blood pressure and be unable to pay for treatment out-of-pocket.

He knows that. He's being intentionally obtuse (and dishonest), which is another of his endearing qualities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom