The Constitutionality of Individual Mandates

[Peikko 1,575]

I fail? What sort of idiotic response is that? I don't care if you think my arguments fail or not, what I care about is people who have congenital defects given access to health the same as those who are born perfect. Does that not bother you that some people have to pay because they are born different and not because they have done something wrong?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Health insurance is essentially the advance financing of future health costs. If one pays cash for pretty much anything, a car or real estate, for example, rather than financing it, your costs are lower overall.

Well now you'll have to buy insurance or pay the yearly fine $695.

[Peikko 1,575]

Interestingly, such policies are now banned.

That would make sense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Please lets not turn this into another flame war. Back to topic.

[mawilson 2,133]

To imagine that you can pay out of pocket for health care and save money all through life is a delusion

Think about it: if insurance actually saved people money, insurance companies

would go out of business - they would have to pay more in claims than they

collect in premiums.

While it's true that sick people clearly benefit from having insurance, they

only benefit at the expense of healthy people. Your average 20-year-old will

see zero financial benefit from having health insurance. For young people,

health insurance is only a hedge against a statistically unlikely health

disaster (it happens, but the odds are very very small for any particular

individual).

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Well now you'll have to buy insurance or pay the yearly fine $695.

Does this mean you can pay the fine and still get treatment when you need it. If so, this is a bargain

[Ban Hammer 13,443]

Please lets not turn this into another flame war. Back to topic.

why should this be different than any other off topic thread?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You fail on a couple levels. The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence but is never mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the government cannot deprive anyone of life, etc. But that is very different than guaranteeing a right to life.

Your second fail comes because I already responded to this. Rights are not something that the government has to provide. They are something you have that the government can't take away.

the constitution also doesn't guarantee equal outcomes for all. If someone pursues happiness by suceeding beyond others by merit and hard work, why should the government be allowed to "equalize" them down to the level of those who don't put forth the kind of effort that brings the same kind of sucess? That someone who doesn't need nor want government assistance to pay their medical costs, doesn't have a deficit of resources is still forced to buy a product that will do nothing for them that the Feds mandate it to do - save costs, insure coverage - is already paying taxes to help with the costs of programs others need. This mandate gives the government the power to usurp personal income for personal insurance as a means of social engineering alone.If this is allowed, then there is no end to what the government can force you to purchase, or prohibit from purchasing, at government whim.

[Kevin and 10]

Does this mean you can pay the fine and still get treatment when you need it. If so, this is a bargain

No, you still wouldn't be covered.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well now you'll have to buy insurance or pay the yearly fine $695.

to be fined for not engaging in commerce is not a power the Feds have now. I would not pay it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Think about it: if insurance actually saved people money, insurance companies

would go out of business - they would have to pay more in claims than they

collect in premiums.

Because it's a pooled risk.

to be fined for not engaging in commerce is not a power the Feds have now. I would not pay it.

According to many prominent constitutional scholars, including conservative ones, they certainly have the right to impose individual mandates on health insurance.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

to be fined for not engaging in commerce is not a power the Feds have now. I would not pay it.

Then there is the argument that its a tax.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Think about it: if insurance actually saved people money, insurance companies

would go out of business - they would have to pay more in claims than they

collect in premiums.

While it's true that sick people clearly benefit from having insurance, they

only benefit at the expense of healthy people. Your average 20-year-old will

see zero financial benefit from having health insurance. For young people,

health insurance is only a hedge against a statistically unlikely health

disaster (it happens, but the odds are very very small for any particular

individual).

the premiums you pay are not only for your future care, they include admin costs, operational costs, profit margins, and other hidden costs for the insurance company. The only way you pay anything close to your true medical costs is with cash and carry. I don't need to pool resources to cover my own costs, so I choose not to.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Then there is the argument that its a tax.

There's nothing to tax you on however.

They would have to nationalize health care and then have a tax based on that for it to be considered as such.

[mawilson 2,133]

Because it's a pooled risk.

It's also a pooled risk over your lifetime. When you're young, the risk

is very low. As you get older, the risk is greater.