BF2S Forums Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health INS

The real question is, Does the government have the right to force you to have health insurance?

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

Yes they are!! GJ Reid/Pelosi
Check it out: The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes...

The Government CANNOT impose any regulated fees, or make its citizens buy ANYTHING from the Government.

Spoiler (highlight to read):
Tomorrows speech will make or break his Presidency. If he clearly states how it will work and be paid for, he might have a shot... otherwise he's done IMO.

Edit: Ill say this again, too:
Health Insurance or health benefits are not a "RIGHT" provided by the US Constitution. Health Insurance or health benefits are a "privilege" for those the "earn" its "benefits." Period.

^^^^^^^^
Even if PBO and the Dems pass anything, you can be sure that the insurance industry will be bringing out the big guns and challenging the commerce clause. IMO the people occupying the seats on SCOTUS would love to trim the commerce clause back. But I would love to see an FDR type stand off with SCOTUS, perhaps Scalia and Thomas can be impeached or maybe PBO can pack the court up to lucky number 13. Oh to dream.


As for the rest,
The whole "healthcare is not a right" is just buzz words jingoism. FYI its circular logic. Healthcare is not a right therefore reform shouldn't be done, reform shouldn't be done why? because its not a right... garbage.

and for fun here is a list of other less popular and equally useless jingos for things that are also not rights.
1. profits are not a right
2. bail outs are not a right
3. corporations are not a right
4. tax cuts are not a right
5. tax incentives are not a right

Its simply amazing how things that are not rights all seem to get done dispite the fact that they are not rights. So the reason they get done must be based on some other reason other than they must be "rights". Mayhaps it makes economic sense that certain things get done to keep the economy healthy.  Getting health care is a necessity, not a mere privilege (sorry), and needs to be highly regulated. If the regulation of the industry means that the gougers feel that its no longer profitable enough for them then too bad.

The problem is that health insurance doesn't work as a market unless some people are denied access. So those people are sacrificed  in order to make the industry profitable. The insurance industry has no right to declare ownership over this market or the profits to made in this market.... There is no god given right to a profit.

Where Dumocrats are going wrong is that the the reduction of costs is going to adversely affect someone. Someone is going to lose and it will be the insurance industry (and good riddance to them). The worst case scenerio is that these clowns will come out a say that they guarantee that no one will lose anything because that means that taxpayer is going to be raped.

Since most if not all resistence to health care reform comes from the insurance industry, what would be an interesting way to grease the wheel of change would be to tell insurance companies that the govt would pay them their present day profit for a set period of time, say ten years. The insurance companies accepting the offer could simply bow out of the market, close up offices, reduce all overhead, lay off everyone and collect their welfare check while they change their business plan. So while there may be no god given right to a profit, when it comes to changing peoples minds, dollars talk louder than rights.

My main question regarding this healthcare overhaul has always been - why are they doing it?  Do these Dems actually care about their constituency so much that they want everyone to have healthcare coverage?  Or is it a legacy issue, something the DNC can say, "hey, that was us" on?  How much are certain industries like health insurance and pharma influencing the wording and laws of the proposed legislation?

I support the idea of universal coverage, and I honestly don't care about throwing a few more dollars in to the cess-pool that is the American budget so that my fellow human beings can afford to go see their GP for preventative care.  I don't support corruption and I absolutely despise the idea of lobbyists molding this bill into a cash cow for certain industries, as is obvious to anyone who has actually been following this whole charade.  I actually hope the bill fails as it is though, because requiring people to sign up for something they don't necessarily need is retarded and goes against the fundamental principle of liberty.  The whole commerce clause angle is a larger argument that can be applied to virtually everything the federal government has done in the last 200 years.

Kmarion wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Are the Dems trying to ruin it for Obama? Nice job Reid/Pelosi.

They're as bad as the right. No middle ground. Their way or the highway.

Ridiculous.

I'm not joking when I say I think they may be trying to ruin Obama. I don't think Barry O is performing quite as predicted. Obama has said over and over that he isn't going to require anyone to purchase new insurance. This is going to end up kicking him square in the nuts. I think we may be seeing a power struggle not between the parties, but between the branches.

I choose to remain an optimist and I believe it'll all work out in the end. The republicans have got to be joking if they think they're going to magically take back congress in 2010.

I think right now as a whole, congress fucking blows. There's maybe 2-4 senators (Chuck Hagel ftw) with a brain, maybe 5-10 congressmen.

Poseidon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

They're as bad as the right. No middle ground. Their way or the highway.

Ridiculous.

I'm not joking when I say I think they may be trying to ruin Obama. I don't think Barry O is performing quite as predicted. Obama has said over and over that he isn't going to require anyone to purchase new insurance. This is going to end up kicking him square in the nuts. I think we may be seeing a power struggle not between the parties, but between the branches.

I choose to remain an optimist and I believe it'll all work out in the end. The republicans have got to be joking if they think they're going to magically take back congress in 2010.

I think right now as a whole, congress fucking blows. There's maybe 2-4 senators (Chuck Hagel ftw) with a brain, maybe 5-10 congressmen.

I agree the majority of congress blows. .. on the whole.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I support the idea of universal coverage, and I honestly don't care about throwing a few more dollars in to the cess-pool that is the American budget so that my fellow human beings can afford to go see their GP for preventative care.

I endorse this.

The comparison between automotive insurance and health insurance is non-sensical. The only insurance you are required to have is liability--which is intended to pay for damages to another person/property, not your own.

And if you don't drive, you don't need insurance.

What's the analog for health insurance?

It simply makes no sense.

If people don't want to buy health insurance, they realize they may get hit with significant bills should they get sick. That's their decision to make and their responsibility to bear should it come to pass. Not the government's. Not mine. Not yours.

Watching obama's healthcare speech atm, he seems to be very balenced.

Poseidon wrote:

A republican just shouted out "it's a lie!' when Obama said that no illegals would be covered.

And people say Obama has no class? Give me a fucking break. It's a joint session of congress on TV.

He was probably one of the handful of people in that room that have actually read the bill. He might not have been classy, but he was correct.

==============================

The plan Obama's talking about sounds great.

Too bad it's not the one in front of Congress right now.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-09-09 18:01:28)

FEOS wrote:

The comparison between automotive insurance and health insurance is non-sensical. The only insurance you are required to have is liability--which is intended to pay for damages to another person/property, not your own.

And if you don't drive, you don't need insurance.

What's the analog for health insurance?

It simply makes no sense.

If people don't want to buy health insurance, they realize they may get hit with significant bills should they get sick. That's their decision to make and their responsibility to bear should it come to pass. Not the government's. Not mine. Not yours.

When people end up in the hospital without insurance and don't pay up, those costs get passed to you and me.  This is true both for our current system and for a socialized one.

Why isn't it the government's right to force people to have insurance if I'm going to end up paying for somebody else's lack of coverage anyway?

At some point, you have to realize that this idealistic concept of individualism doesn't apply to much of reality.  We're all connected.  I'd rather everyone have coverage (whether they like it or not) than have to pay more anyway because of their negligence.

Harmor wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

It's the Daily Mail...  c'mon man.  That's like using The Sun as your source.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Why isn't it the government's right to force people to have insurance if I'm going to end up paying for somebody else's lack of coverage anyway?

Because it's not the government's job, nor is it enumerated in the Constitution.

The better comparison was the one used by Obama tonight: public vs private college.

The difference is that the government doesn't (yet) think it can force you to go to college.

As for passing on costs: If the costs were truly passed on to others, there would be no medical debt.

So you don't think that most of the reason why we pay so much for healthcare is because our system doesn't properly handle people who don't pay up?