I want universal health care. But I'm told this bill contains a provision where Americans will be REQUIRED to purchase health care, and will have their payments subsidized by the government. If they don't purchase health care, they will be fined.
However, REQUIRING someone to purchase health care at all seems completely wrong to me. You can just choose not to drive a car for car insurance and the like, but you can't choose to not be alive - suicide is illegal.
Look at it like this. I live in a country with universal health care.
The benefit of universal health care is lower cost. You get lower cost because you get a bigger risk pool: IE, everybody. That's how health insurance works, after all: healthy people subsidize the costs of sick people, assuming that some day they will get sick and then it will be up to other healthy people to subsidize them, and so on and so forth.
But the requirement of universal healthcare is universal enrolment. I don't get to say "welp I feel pretty good right now so I'ma skip paying my healthcare
( ... )
Ah, thank you both. I was concerned about whether or not there were poverty exemptions and the like, because I know how much of a cornholing I got from having to buy COBRA coverage during my unemployed year. It seemed sort of oxymoronic to say 'let's cover these poor people by forcing them to buy health care.' Obviously, I've not done my homework.
If, by chance, a challenge DID go to the Supreme Court, do they have the option of essentially 'line-item overturning' one aspect of the HCR bill, or is it all or nothing?
Obviously, the leader of the Autobots will have a more nuanced legal opinion than I, but the Supremes can invalidate portions of a law without affecting the substantive whole, should they choose to do so.
Everything I'm seeing from people with credible legal opinions is that this law is not unconstitutional; we have numerous similar examples of things in this country, none of which have been invalidated.
Alas, I think not having done one's homework is a pretty systemic problem in the country these days; somebody hears some somebody else that they're going to be forced to buy healthcare and they get all riled up and frothy and refuse to hear reason before they ever bother to actually read the facts. Luckily you are not one of them folks.
Also I have no idea if you can only turn over bits of a bill instead of the whole thing, this comment is largely a useless one! Whee!
However, REQUIRING someone to purchase health care at all seems completely wrong to me. You can just choose not to drive a car for car insurance and the like, but you can't choose to not be alive - suicide is illegal.
Look at it like this. I live in a country with universal health care.
The benefit of universal health care is lower cost. You get lower cost because you get a bigger risk pool: IE, everybody. That's how health insurance works, after all: healthy people subsidize the costs of sick people, assuming that some day they will get sick and then it will be up to other healthy people to subsidize them, and so on and so forth.
But the requirement of universal healthcare is universal enrolment. I don't get to say "welp I feel pretty good right now so I'ma skip paying my healthcare ( ... )
Reply
As usual, Mr. Prime here says it all better and faster than I can manage.
Reply
If, by chance, a challenge DID go to the Supreme Court, do they have the option of essentially 'line-item overturning' one aspect of the HCR bill, or is it all or nothing?
Reply
Everything I'm seeing from people with credible legal opinions is that this law is not unconstitutional; we have numerous similar examples of things in this country, none of which have been invalidated.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/constitutionality-of-mandatory.html - more info.
Reply
Also I have no idea if you can only turn over bits of a bill instead of the whole thing, this comment is largely a useless one! Whee!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment