TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
There's talk that this may be unconstitutional. What do you guys think?
Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?
- Thread starter TheLonelySquire
- Start date
Everyone gets health care when they really need it. I see nothing wrong with trying to get SOME money out of everyone in exchange for that. Obviously many people can't afford to pay what they actually cost the system but I'm ok with that. But to pay zero and still receive care? I think you should have to pay something, even if it's just a few dollars a month.
I'm surprised it's the Republicans against that. Getting something for nothing seems like exactly the sort of thing they'd be against, but in this case they're all for it!
I'm surprised it's the Republicans against that. Getting something for nothing seems like exactly the sort of thing they'd be against, but in this case they're all for it!
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Well, we all know why they're trying to jam this through under the cloak of darkness and before 2010 hits. But if it is challenged and it drags out it can be a real problem for the libs.
Ok, but none of that explains why the GOP is going against their stereotype here. Why am I, the softie-liberal, in favor of squeezing money out of poor folks while the Republicans are happy with the current welfare-style system?
Isn't this backwards? I don't get it.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
The poor folks won't pay a dime. Not a one. In that regard it's a very liberal program.
Well, those are two very different questions (should Americans be required vs. is it constitutional).
My guess is, in order for it to pass constitutional requirements, they'll use the commerce clause (basically, failing to buy health insurance impacts interstate commerce as it'll impact hospitals and insurance companies).
What are the constitutional issues?
Insurance is nothing but organized crime and our congress is squarely in their back pocket. Freedom of choice is the first victim of socialism.
We're getting dangerously close to talking in meaningless generalities. Since I can't define "poor folks" at the moment I'll stop using it and focus on another issue.
Another big point is that this will bring a lot of healthy (non-poor) people into the system. This influx of money is going to make health insurance more like other kinds of insurance.
Imagine if car insurance was mostly sold to bad drivers and good ones didn't have to buy it. It would get pretty expensive! And, of course, even good drivers can have an accident. Then they become a leech. Only by making all drivers pay can the risk be spread out to a workable degree which keeps costs manageable.
And that's one big problem health care has...many, many people don't pay into it because they think they're healthy, so why bother? This makes the health insurance companies' pools very shallow which is a tough way to run an insurance company. Forcing everyone to jump in the pool will give them a lot more flexibility to run their companies better.
So which is it? Hint: Socialists don't help big-business succeed! Either you believe one of these things or the other.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's the constitutional issue. There is arguably a way to use the commerce clause (a la Wickard v. Filburn) or some kind of back door funding method (a la South Dakota v. Dole). Personally, those are among my least favorite Supreme Court cases, but they are the precedents that would allow Congress to act, imo (and something does need to be done, that's for sure).
Freedom will always be more appealing than big government.
I am totally unemployed, taking care of my elderly parents I had to move in with me and my wife and she has to take care of her elderly mother and they have health insurance..I cannot afford to buy it, don't have a job or income and cannot get one for being a caregiver. So in respect to the unemployed, NO they should not have to buy health insurance..how can they?
I may lose my Republicanness for saying this but isn't the whole point of this health care reform thing, having insurance provided *for* us, so we don't HAVE to buy it?
No.
There will be some of that for the very poor and the very old but, for the most part, the answer to your question is 'no.'
The ideal hope is that a system that mandates health insurance will mandate ways to pay for it. Obviously, it's very different from car insurance and it essential in today's world for a good standard of living. Therefore, those without income or a job could have government aided insurance.
All employers should be required to provide insurance for their employees, ideally from day one (or at least a reasonable amount of time - like a month - after hiring). That's about as far as the government should require, IMHO.
Last edited:
No Americans shouldn't be required to by health insurance, it should be provided by the government as a function of society. Just pay your taxes instead of insurance premiums and move on. If the idiots that are Republicans would have had an honest debate and discussion maybe we could have gotten that. Instead we got this mess.
Freedom for the wealthy with a slim hope of one day succeeding doesn't sound much like freedom, but it is how the Republican party operates.
Freedom for the wealthy with a slim hope of one day succeeding doesn't sound much like freedom, but it is how the Republican party operates.
The problem with comparing health insurance to car insurance is that no one really has to drive. Driving is a privilege and a choice. One that you can learn to live without. As I have for the last six years in fact. You cannot do without your health.
If you lived in Australia you would be receiving a carer's pension and you would be entitled to free health coverage.
