I'm sure those people ARE feeling/thinking that way. I never thought they didn't.

Yeah, I hope people realize that there are some specific provisions of the bill that I find are good. There is a lot that I think isn't too good and another portion that I think is terrible.

Writerbuckeye;564954 wrote:[/B]

And you fail to see why. It's a major step toward further intrusion into our already overly intruded upon lives. It is LOSS of freedom.

You can't force people to be responsible. In the end, they'll be as irresponsible as they are. Let them face the consequences of their decisions and actions.

That is what real freedom is about.

No it is not. You know what is an intrusion on your life is when your health insurance costs more because other people aren't carrying. That is an intrusion on your life. If you do the responsible thing and buy health insurance, the government leaves you alone.

What you bitch about all the time and yet dismiss at random, is that people being "irresponsible" and not buying health insurance aren't the only ones who feel the consequences of their poor choice. "Freedom," as conservatives mean when they use that word is not having the burdens of others placed onto you without your own consent.


It's just like many other provisions in our tax regime. You do the responsible thing and save for retirement, we'll circumvent income tax norms and let you do so tax free. You save up enough to own a home and have a piece of land, we'll circumvent income tax norms and let you pay the interest on that loan tax free, and, when you sell it, you can do so tax free. You insure your health, you pay less taxes.

BoatShoes;564117 wrote:But see, you've made persuasive arguments in this thread in regards to how many people may be able to afford health insurance even without a big government socialistic bureaucratic mess. I imagine you genuinely believe it not to be within Congress' power to mandate persons pay a tax in the event that they don't purchase health insurance. I disagree, but, with that said...let's suppose that Congress passed a Constitutional amendment to make it that the case that there was no doubt Congress had this power. You said in your other post that you would think it to be "wrong" for our representatives to require us to pay a tax in the event we don't make a private purchase.

But, you've also suggested that there may be something "wrong" with someone choosing not to purchase health insurance and putting that risk on the rest of us in the form of higher prices. If that's true, why wouldn't it be the case that the People at large getting together and demanding individual citizens who don't bear their burden to insure their health, when they can perfectly afford to do so, pay a tax to the people in order to properly place the burden on the individual choosing not to bear it?

Yes those that choose not to purchase health insurance in lieu of giving up the cell phone, internet, cable, or whatever, are potentially subjecting the rest of us to the risk of higher health care costs. We allow them the freedom to make these unwise decisions. It is true many young people see the risks as low and play the odds and place a small risk on others.

In the cases that those individuals who chose not to individually insure themselves and passed that risk on to their fellow citizens in lieu of personal sacrifices, and now find themselves in a precarious health care related financial situation. We have a constitutional process in place to deal with them. Citizens will absorb the higher costs they may endure to assure these individuals are given medical care for their needs. After this the individual will be assessed the bill.

The individual can be sued in local court and and be brought before the local peoples judge to make an account for his/her financial decisions. The local judge may render a judgment to garnish a percentage of the individual's wages. An individual "tax" if you will. The local peoples attempt to hold the individual accountable.

If the individual has no financial means to pay for it the individual can declare bankruptcy and chose to plead his/her case before all citizens within the union. The individual will be made to make a financial account to the people for his/her burden they have placed on the people by means of their own personal financial decisions.

Under article 1 section 8 of the constitution:

Congress shall have the power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

This gives the legislative branch in the federal government the power to regulate and pass laws through out the union to deal with those who are passing an individual financial burden on to their fellow citizens. This is done through the judicial process by judges assessing laws on the matter passed by congress.

Congress has established bankruptcy courts to deal with these matters. The individual now has a chance to present his/her case before the people of the union. The judge will assess the individuals situation and within the laws that the peoples legislature have passed make a judgment on the individual.

The court has the power to seize assets that the individual possesses in order to compensate the people. In most cases (even those who are grossly irresponsible with their finances) the people will grant a level of financial forgiveness. In return the individual is financially black balled for period of time.

Little Danny;564754 wrote:Being on Mommy and Daddy's plan is nearly 1/3 of the average person's life expectancy. Sure it isn't forever, but it is a pretty damn long time. Maybe you would be for a mother to continue breast feeding up until this age. After all, it is isn't forever....

No one is being required to stay on their parent's insurance until age 27 and no one is saying that parents will be paying for their kids that whole time. My sister is 21 years old, a college graduate with a double major, married, and is fluent in Spanish. He and her husband just moved to LA so that he can attend grad school there and she can't get a job. She's been there a month, has applied at a ton of places, and hasn't found work yet. I'm not talking about a career job or a job in her chosen career field, I mean she can't even find a job in retail right now. She worked for Victoria's Secret before and as supposed to be transferring to a store out there which she arranged to do before she moved there and they still haven't put her on the schedule yet, and she's been applying elsewhere since before they moved there. My sister also has a rare blood disease that weakens her immune system, so she definitely needs medical insurance. Since she can't get insurance on her own right now she has stayed on my parent's policy, but she pays her entire premium herself. It is cheaper for her and will guarantee her coverage far better than if she went off and tried to get insurance on her own (which she would have to do if she were a few years older under the old system).

No one is forcing 25 year olds to stay on their parent's insurance (I'm 25 and I have my own insurance). But allowing people to stay on their parent's insurance longer (for instance while they are going through graduate school or paying off student loans) it allows more young people to be insured and often at a lower rate. If they didn't extend the age to 27, then far fewer people age 23-27 would be insured.

majorspark;565157 wrote:Yes those that choose not to purchase health insurance in lieu of giving up the cell phone, internet, cable, or whatever, are potentially subjecting the rest of us to the risk of higher health care costs. We allow them the freedom to make these unwise decisions. It is true many young people see the risks as low and play the odds and place a small risk on others.

In the cases that those individuals who chose not to individually insure themselves and passed that risk on to their fellow citizens in lieu of personal sacrifices, and now find themselves in a precarious health care related financial situation. We have a constitutional process in place to deal with them. Citizens will absorb the higher costs they may endure to assure these individuals are given medical care for their needs. After this the individual will be assessed the bill.

The individual can be sued in local court and and be brought before the local peoples judge to make an account for his/her financial decisions. The local judge may render a judgment to garnish a percentage of the individual's wages. An individual "tax" if you will. The local peoples attempt to hold the individual accountable.

If the individual has no financial means to pay for it the individual can declare bankruptcy and chose to plead his/her case before all citizens within the union. The individual will be made to make a financial account to the people for his/her burden they have placed on the people by means of their own personal financial decisions.

Under article 1 section 8 of the constitution:

Congress shall have the power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

This gives the legislative branch in the federal government the power to regulate and pass laws through out the union to deal with those who are passing an individual financial burden on to their fellow citizens. This is done through the judicial process by judges assessing laws on the matter passed by congress.

Congress has established bankruptcy courts to deal with these matters. The individual now has a chance to present his/her case before the people of the union. The judge will assess the individuals situation and within the laws that the peoples legislature have passed make a judgment on the individual.

The court has the power to seize assets that the individual possesses in order to compensate the people. In most cases (even those who are grossly irresponsible with their finances) the people will grant a level of financial forgiveness. In return the individual is financially black balled for period of time.

Well said.

majorspark;565157 wrote:Yes those that choose not to purchase health insurance in lieu of giving up the cell phone, internet, cable, or whatever, are potentially subjecting the rest of us to the risk of higher health care costs. We allow them the freedom to make these unwise decisions. It is true many young people see the risks as low and play the odds and place a small risk on others.

In the cases that those individuals who chose not to individually insure themselves and passed that risk on to their fellow citizens in lieu of personal sacrifices, and now find themselves in a precarious health care related financial situation. We have a constitutional process in place to deal with them. Citizens will absorb the higher costs they may endure to assure these individuals are given medical care for their needs. After this the individual will be assessed the bill.

The individual can be sued in local court and and be brought before the local peoples judge to make an account for his/her financial decisions. The local judge may render a judgment to garnish a percentage of the individual's wages. An individual "tax" if you will. The local peoples attempt to hold the individual accountable.

If the individual has no financial means to pay for it the individual can declare bankruptcy and chose to plead his/her case before all citizens within the union. The individual will be made to make a financial account to the people for his/her burden they have placed on the people by means of their own personal financial decisions.

Under article 1 section 8 of the constitution:

Congress shall have the power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

This gives the legislative branch in the federal government the power to regulate and pass laws through out the union to deal with those who are passing an individual financial burden on to their fellow citizens. This is done through the judicial process by judges assessing laws on the matter passed by congress.

Congress has established bankruptcy courts to deal with these matters. The individual now has a chance to present his/her case before the people of the union. The judge will assess the individuals situation and within the laws that the peoples legislature have passed make a judgment on the individual.

The court has the power to seize assets that the individual possesses in order to compensate the people. In most cases (even those who are grossly irresponsible with their finances) the people will grant a level of financial forgiveness. In return the individual is financially black balled for period of time.

I see what you did...individually

majorspark;565157 wrote:
The individual can be sued in local court and and be brought before the local peoples judge to make an account for his/her financial decisions. The local judge may render a judgment to garnish a percentage of the individual's wages. An individual "tax" if you will. The local peoples attempt to hold the individual accountable.

You don't have a tort cause of action against someone for raising your insurance prices because they failed to purchase their own insurance because you'll never prove causation. Now, a hospital giving free health care to someone with say a broken leg that he cannot pay for and then suing him for the bill. The costs passed onto other citizens are felt much sooner before any judgment on a civil suit is made. Then, once he is set before a bankruptcy court, this process takes even longer. This process does not restore benefits and burdens into equilibrium and is a paragon of inefficiency.

Congress also has an interest in ensuring that individuals avoid civil suits and litigation and bankruptcies that may have easily been prevented by low cost insurance. And, it is within Congress' power to pass such a law to that extent. If you think for a second that a bankruptcy or civil suit of an individual who refused to pay for her own health insurance lifts their burden off of you than I don't know what to say.

I believe there is only one correct way to interpret the Constitution and that is original public meaning textualism. Nevertheless, even with this interpretative philosophy Congress having the powers to tax, to spend, to regulate commerce, to wage war, to enforce prohibitions on state government actions abridging individual liberties combined with the sweeping power to enact laws that are necessary and proper for carrying those enumerated powers and any other powers of the national government into execution, create a government of truly enormous powers. Indeed, Hamilton considered the taxing power to be the most important of the enumerated powers of Congress and it is abundantly clear from the test and history that the taxing power may be employed for regulatory purposes essentially unrelated to the collection of revenue of course balanced against concerns in the Due Process clause.

Congress taxing an individual for failing to purchase health insurance could easily flow from this proposition and I am confident that the judiciary will agree once this litigation being brought by the States is finished.

I'm not the only person with this view. Here is an article written by a prominent member of the Federalist Society...the same one to which Justice Roberts and other liberal's nightmares belong, who shares this view; See

Paulsen, Michael Stokes. The Original Meaning of the Commerce, Spending, and Necessary and Proper Clauses: A Government of Adequate Powers. 31 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 991.

^^^When the Nation's founders framed the Constitution, I sincerely doubt they envisioned an ever-increasing and bloated Federal government using these "interpretive powers" to tax - well actually FINE - its citizens for failing to purchase insurance for their own PERSONAL health care.

Quite frankly I'm not seeing how personal health care in any way, shape, or form is a national security matter or interstate commerce matter.

It's ironic that the Feds may "enforce prohibitions on state government actions abridging individual liberties", but the states apparently don't enjoy reciprocal authority to insure that the Feds do the same.

It's a social issue that sho0uld have nothing to do with the federal government.

Do you agree that people should not be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions?

If so then how do we best deter people from not carrying coverage until they get an injury or illness where they then procure health care coverage so they can use its benefits at great cost to those who paid into it even when they weren't ill?

Edit: Dear Lord is that a bad sentence.

I Wear Pants;567070 wrote:Do you agree that people should not be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions?

How can you not deny people coverage with preexisting conditions? If you don't have coverage and get cancer, how can you expect an insurance company to take the hit on that?

iclfan2;567100 wrote:How can you not deny people coverage with preexisting conditions? If you don't have coverage and get cancer, how can you expect an insurance company to take the hit on that?

Typical Republicans response

Ty Webb;567119 wrote:Typical Republicans response

Typical no response.

Ty Webb;567119 wrote:Typical Republicans response

Are you shitting me? It is a common sense response. How can you FORCE a business to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical expenses? Not only that, but doing so would raise up rates on the other people. I'd really like a liberal to explain to me how FORCING a company to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars of responsibility is ok. I can't wait until you are in the real world, not in your parents house, you are in for a rude awakening.

You know Center....you say you're a Democrat,but you sure as hell sound like a Republicans to me....

Are you also ok with insurance compaines kicking people off their policies because they develop a condition and because it was genetic,they claim it's a pre-existing?

iclfan2;567153 wrote:Are you shitting me? It is a common sense response. How can you FORCE a business to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical expenses? Not only that, but doing so would raise up rates on the other people. I'd really like a liberal to explain to me how FORCING a company to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars of responsibility is ok. I can't wait until you are in the real world, not in your parents house, you are in for a rude awakening.

You do realize that I work,pay part of the rent,and pay for a care right you fuckwad?

I Wear Pants;567070 wrote:Do you agree that people should not be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions?

If so then how do we best deter people from not carrying coverage until they get an injury or illness where they then procure health care coverage so they can use its benefits at great cost to those who paid into it even when they weren't ill?

Edit: Dear Lord is that a bad sentence.

It depends on the condition. If someone with Diabetes loses coverage due to a job loss or such, yes, I think they should be afforded normal covereage. If someone develops cancer and has never had health insurance, there should be options available to them, but insurance companies should not be forced to provide the same coverage as a healthy person.

Ty, just fucking stop, you make liberals look bad, to put it mildly.

I don't even like posting on the politics board anymore because i have to be loosely associated with you due to our political leanings. That is way more than i can handle.

LJ;567159 wrote:It depends on the condition. If someone with Diabetes loses coverage due to a job loss or such, yes, I think they should be afforded normal covereage. If someone develops cancer and has never had health insurance, there should be options available to them, but insurance companies should not be forced to provide the same coverage as a healthy person.

This.

I don't care what you pay for? And I think it is ridiculous your parents make you pay rent, btw if you are really in college still. And you still haven't answered the question. How can you FORCE a company to take on additional liability. And not your example to center, but someone with no insurance, having a pre existing condition.

What if it is someone who is going to get insurance for the first time,they have some kind of genetic condition that don't know about?? It's two completely different situations

Then they should have to pay more in insurance if they are going to be using more insurance coverage. It isn't the insurance agency's responsibility to take on more liability for someone who will obviously be using more insurance. Insurance agencies should never be required to take on someone's coverage they do not want. Free market?

Ty Webb;567156 wrote:You know Center....you say you're a Democrat,but you sure as hell sound like a Republicans to me....

Are you also ok with insurance compaines kicking people off their policies because they develop a condition and because it was genetic,they claim it's a pre-existing?

1. Why do I seem like a republican to you? Because I don't think like YOU do? Please answer me that!

2. I don't think it is right to kick somebody off of their insurance because they develope a condition. I do think, however that the government went about this all wrong. We can discuss that in another thread, if you like. I've stated many times over my position to you, Gibby, Elliot Stabler, and a whole host of others who think the government was 100% accurate with its machinations and the use thereof to control people for their own agenda. That goes for both republicans and democrats.

3. Would you be OK with the insurance companies going out of business because they didn't have the capital to cover anybody anymore? At that point, would you be OK with a government bailout for those companies?
Would you be happy with one or both of those scenario's?

4. I have never read you posting anything that makes more sense than anybody else I've read proposing ideas. Never.
Would you care to state what exactly YOU think should be done to make both ends more conducive for the insurance companies AND it's policy holders?

iclfan2;567181 wrote:Then they should have to pay more in insurance if they are going to be using more insurance coverage. It isn't the insurance agency's responsibility to take on more liability for someone who will obviously be using more insurance. Insurance agencies should never be required to take on someone's coverage they do not want. Free market?

If they are going to provide that product they should have to, but think about the SR-22 type coverage for car insurance. Same idea.