Federal judge rules lawsuit against Obamacare can go to trial

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nobody should be forced to purchase anything. End of story.

GabuEx

Taking out the individual mandate while leaving in things such as preventing rescission and denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions would bankrupt the insurance companies. I don't understand why people seem to think that the individual mandate is something that can be just cut out. The individual mandate is basically what makes the rest of the reforms possible.

Nobody should be forced to purchase anything. End of story.

The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. testfactor888

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. Sajo7

I actually am against taxes and thus refuse to pay them. Have not paid my taxes in a few years now. /shrug

If the IRS ever comes to get me least I will get free meals and a bed for awhile

I know what taxes are for but I just don't honestly care as I don't feel I should have to pay them. I would have to come up with a better defense though if I ever got taken to court :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] 100% agree. They take out the individual mandate and I than am left with 0 problems with the health care reformtestfactor888

Taking out the individual mandate while leaving in things such as preventing rescission and denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions would bankrupt the insurance companies. I don't understand why people seem to think that the individual mandate is something that can be just cut out. The individual mandate is basically what makes the rest of the reforms possible.

Well there are alternatives to the individual mandate, but they involved - dun dun dun - government involvement, which makes them untenable proposals.

I mean this is really the problem. People are all like, "They can't take away coverage for pre-existing conditions! This must be stopped!" and then legislators are like, "OK, but you'll need to chip in a bit since this is insurance" and then people are like "WHAT! No, you need to give it to us for free!" And then people wonder why the government fails to give them what they want.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. testfactor888

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nobody should be forced to purchase anything. End of story.

On3ShotOneKill

Which shouldn't be the case.

Also I do believe that is a state law. Here in Wisconsin you're not forced to buy any insurance. It's just smart.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] I actually am against taxes and thus refuse to pay them. Have not paid my taxes in a few years now. /shrug If the IRS ever comes to get me least I will get free meals and a bed for awhiletestfactor888

Well then we should stop paying for your clean water, roads, education, protection, fire department and stop all regulations of business for you seeing as you refuse to contribute back to society but take from it.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. Sajo7

Military, education, infrastructure...

Hell you can even argue that education should be privatized. The only real spending the government should be doing is protecting our rights from internal and external sources. They provide infrastructure because it can really benefit an economy. Same with education.

Providing a level of healthcare can also help the economy, but the current bill spends far to much and puts far to much red tape down without even solving some of the basic problems (insurance companies can't compete across state lines? What crap is that?!). It's a bad bill with good intentions. But as I have said before, good intentions don't make good bills.

The Patriot Act's intentions are to keep us safe. Sure great intentions... not necessarily the best bill ever written. It's just something to keep in mind.

A lot of people for smaller government are often seen as heartless because of this. They shoot down legislation that on face value is there to help people. The bills always have good intentions but they usually come with tons of consequences too. More often than not, good intention bills cause more harm on a national scale than they help. Social security basically was for the ignorant masses who didn't want to be financially responsible. Medicare is an attempt at giving low-income households healthcare. It failed so hard we have had to give it several boosts in the past and now throw a few trillion dollars at it.

All feel good legislation. Hell look at No Child Left Behind. Great intentions. Help our schools. Horrid bill. This works with both parties equally.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. Wasdie

Military, education, infrastructure...

Hell you can even argue that education should be privatized. The only real spending the government should be doing is protecting our rights from internal and external sources. They provide infrastructure because it can really benefit an economy. Same with education.

Providing a level of healthcare can also help the economy, but the current bill spends far to much and puts far to much red tape down without even solving some of the basic problems (insurance companies can't compete across state lines? What crap is that?!). It's a bad bill with good intentions. But as I have said before, good intentions don't make good bills.

The Patriot Act's intentions are to keep us safe. Sure great intentions... not necessarily the best bill ever written. It's just something to keep in mind.

A lot of people for smaller government are often seen as heartless because of this. They shoot down legislation that on face value is there to help people. The bills always have good intentions but they usually come with tons of consequences too. More often than not, good intention bills cause more harm on a national scale than they help. Social security basically was for the ignorant masses who didn't want to be financially responsible. Medicare is an attempt at giving low-income households healthcare. It failed so hard we have had to give it several boosts in the past and now throw a few trillion dollars at it.

All feel good legislation. Hell look at No Child Left Behind. Great intentions. Help our schools. Horrid bill. This works with both parties equally.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. Wasdie

Military, education, infrastructure...

Hell you can even argue that education should be privatized. The only real spending the government should be doing is protecting our rights from internal and external sources. They provide infrastructure because it can really benefit an economy. Same with education.

Providing a level of healthcare can also help the economy, but the current bill spends far to much and puts far to much red tape down without even solving some of the basic problems (insurance companies can't compete across state lines? What crap is that?!). It's a bad bill with good intentions. But as I have said before, good intentions don't make good bills.

The Patriot Act's intentions are to keep us safe. Sure great intentions... not necessarily the best bill ever written. It's just something to keep in mind.

A lot of people for smaller government are often seen as heartless because of this. They shoot down legislation that on face value is there to help people. The bills always have good intentions but they usually come with tons of consequences too. More often than not, good intention bills cause more harm on a national scale than they help. Social security basically was for the ignorant masses who didn't want to be financially responsible. Medicare is an attempt at giving low-income households healthcare. It failed so hard we have had to give it several boosts in the past and now throw a few trillion dollars at it.

All feel good legislation. Hell look at No Child Left Behind. Great intentions. Help our schools. Horrid bill. This works with both parties equally.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nobody should be forced to purchase anything. End of story.

Which shouldn't be the case.

Also I do believe that is a state law. Here in Wisconsin you're not forced to buy any insurance. It's just smart.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Sajo7"] What are taxes for then?On3ShotOneKill

Military, education, infrastructure...

Hell you can even argue that education should be privatized. The only real spending the government should be doing is protecting our rights from internal and external sources. They provide infrastructure because it can really benefit an economy. Same with education.

Providing a level of healthcare can also help the economy, but the current bill spends far to much and puts far to much red tape down without even solving some of the basic problems (insurance companies can't compete across state lines? What crap is that?!). It's a bad bill with good intentions. But as I have said before, good intentions don't make good bills.

The Patriot Act's intentions are to keep us safe. Sure great intentions... not necessarily the best bill ever written. It's just something to keep in mind.

A lot of people for smaller government are often seen as heartless because of this. They shoot down legislation that on face value is there to help people. The bills always have good intentions but they usually come with tons of consequences too. More often than not, good intention bills cause more harm on a national scale than they help. Social security basically was for the ignorant masses who didn't want to be financially responsible. Medicare is an attempt at giving low-income households healthcare. It failed so hard we have had to give it several boosts in the past and now throw a few trillion dollars at it.

All feel good legislation. Hell look at No Child Left Behind. Great intentions. Help our schools. Horrid bill. This works with both parties equally.

Unfunded madates ftw. :P

Also there is a provision in the bill that if a state can come up with a system that achieves similar or better results than the law, then the state can recieve federal funding for that system.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. Wasdie

Military, education, infrastructure...

Hell you can even argue that education should be privatized. The only real spending the government should be doing is protecting our rights from internal and external sources. They provide infrastructure because it can really benefit an economy. Same with education.

Taxes still force you to buy into "Military, education, infrastructure", not to mention other things like utilities, the Police/Fire departments etc.

I would also argue that like education, health care benefits society and our economy in turn.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Military, education, infrastructure...

Hell you can even argue that education should be privatized. The only real spending the government should be doing is protecting our rights from internal and external sources. They provide infrastructure because it can really benefit an economy. Same with education.

Providing a level of healthcare can also help the economy, but the current bill spends far to much and puts far to much red tape down without even solving some of the basic problems (insurance companies can't compete across state lines? What crap is that?!). It's a bad bill with good intentions. But as I have said before, good intentions don't make good bills.

The Patriot Act's intentions are to keep us safe. Sure great intentions... not necessarily the best bill ever written. It's just something to keep in mind.

A lot of people for smaller government are often seen as heartless because of this. They shoot down legislation that on face value is there to help people. The bills always have good intentions but they usually come with tons of consequences too. More often than not, good intention bills cause more harm on a national scale than they help. Social security basically was for the ignorant masses who didn't want to be financially responsible. Medicare is an attempt at giving low-income households healthcare. It failed so hard we have had to give it several boosts in the past and now throw a few trillion dollars at it.

All feel good legislation. Hell look at No Child Left Behind. Great intentions. Help our schools. Horrid bill. This works with both parties equally.

Unfunded madates ftw. :P

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Nobody should be forced to purchase anything. End of story.

testfactor888

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] While I agree with that, people are already forced to buy car insurance.....Theokhoth

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] There is no law saying you must own a car though. It is a choice to own a car and when you choose to own one you have to get insurance.coolbeans90

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="testfactor888"] There is no law saying you must own a car though. It is a choice to own a car and when you choose to own one you have to get insurance.coolbeans90

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

Proof that it wouldn't?

Former_Slacker

Read the next part.

Therefore, you are forced to purchase car insurance. Exact same thing.Theokhoth

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

] Well now we are just getting down to the basic political ideologies. But you do agree that the government does, and should, make us purchase military services, infrastructure, and (maybe :P) education?Sajo7

If it benifits the country on the whole, then taxes are no problem and I will galdy pay them. Massive military spending, unchecked healthcare spending, social security, and welfare benifits that are a biggger trap than anything are not helping the nation.

I don't mind some social spending. A healthcare program that can help the low-wage workers stay healthy and contribute to our society. That would be great. Our attempts have only cost us more than they will ever pay back. We need better legislation and MUCH better management of these programs.

Welfare is another thing. I'm all for reeducation. Low interest, long term student loans to even more people. Not crappy unemployment benefits that are way to easily exploited. Not a system that gets people relying on the state for their income.

Then social security in general is a bad idea. Let's just give money to all of the old people for being old and retired. It's not their responsibility to save for their retirement. I can't wait until it's all privatised. A private investment that yields 3-4% annually is much more profitable than any government program can ever be. SS came from an idea of financial ignorance. Credit card companies just suffered the wrath of the same thing. They gave millions of people financial ignorance and it killed them.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Therefore, you are forced to purchase car insurance. Exact same thing.Theokhoth

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="testfactor888"]The government should not be allowed to force people to have to purchase something. testfactor888

I actually am against taxes and thus refuse to pay them. Have not paid my taxes in a few years now. /shrug

If the IRS ever comes to get me least I will get free meals and a bed for awhile

I know what taxes are for but I just don't honestly care as I don't feel I should have to pay them. I would have to come up with a better defense though if I ever got taken to court :P

No taxes basically means no government, and no government is undesirable.

Or do you mean specifically you oppose the income tax?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

testfactor888

There are many places in America where not owning a car is not even remotely an option.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

testfactor888

Good. Out of all the health care options, the one that passed was by far the worst. Until politicians get out of the health care industries pockets, no health care plan they pass will ever be good.psychobrew

There is no way that will happen any time in the near or regrettably far future.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Car insurance isn't automobiles. It's a separate item altogether. And as has been said, to opt out of buying an automobile is, for most people, opting out of transportation to work, school, or anywhere else in a country as big as the United States. Regardless, you are forced to buy something, whether you have the option of buying a car or no. Exact same thing.GabuEx

There are many places in America where not owning a car is not even remotely an option.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]

[QUOTE="Sajo7"] What are taxes for then?chessmaster1989

I actually am against taxes and thus refuse to pay them. Have not paid my taxes in a few years now. /shrug

If the IRS ever comes to get me least I will get free meals and a bed for awhile

I know what taxes are for but I just don't honestly care as I don't feel I should have to pay them. I would have to come up with a better defense though if I ever got taken to court :P

No taxes basically means no government, and no government is undesirable.

Or do you mean specifically you oppose the income tax?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Therefore, you are forced to purchase car insurance. Exact same thing.Theokhoth

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

No one is required to purchase automobile insurance. If and only if one chooses to drive an automobile on public roads, they are required to purchase auto insurance. This brings up another point. One need not have car insurance unless they drive on public roads. The rules of the transportation system, being public, are determined by institutions elected by the "owners" of the road. This is an extenuating factor in the analogy which points out another flaw. Essentially, one doesn't own the entire transportation system, and likewise are subject to rules regarding the use of it, which happen to include have a car insurance policy.One is also required to purchase a ticket if they wish to fly, but that doesn't necessitate that one has to buy a ticket. They can simply choose not to fly.

With health insurance, one is required to purchase insurance for merely existing.

Very poor analogy.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Therefore, you are forced to purchase car insurance. Exact same thing.On3ShotOneKill

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

It may require they adjust their means of transportation, but there are many ways of getting from point a to point b without having to pay for car insurance. To a significant degree, the analogy is flawed.

Well took long enough for the legal issue to be found I mean 2000 pages theres gotta be a ton of legal issues at fault here.

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Car insurance isn't automobiles. It's a separate item altogether. And as has been said, to opt out of buying an automobile is, for most people, opting out of transportation to work, school, or anywhere else in a country as big as the United States. Regardless, you are forced to buy something, whether you have the option of buying a car or no. Exact same thing.GabuEx

There are many places in America where not owning a car is not even remotely an option.

One may have to adjust their way of life significantly, but it isn't mandated simply by virtue of existence.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] Not the same thing at all, not even similar since owning a car is an option and not forcedtestfactor888

There are many places in America where not owning a car is not even remotely an option.

...

I'm not sure if you even read my post or took the semantic meaning of the words it contained into consideration before replying. :P

[QUOTE="testfactor888"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Car insurance isn't automobiles. It's a separate item altogether. And as has been said, to opt out of buying an automobile is, for most people, opting out of transportation to work, school, or anywhere else in a country as big as the United States. Regardless, you are forced to buy something, whether you have the option of buying a car or no. Exact same thing.Theokhoth

One isn't required to pay car insurance merely for existing, unlike the issue regarding mandating health insurance.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"] Not the same thing at all, not even similar since owning a car is an option and not forcedcoolbeans90

There are many places in America where not owning a car is not even remotely an option.

One may have to adjust their way of life significantly, but it isn't mandated simply by virtue of existence.

Yes, one may have to adjust their way of life in terms of not having a job, not being able to get groceries... there is absolutely no practical difference between that and just flat-out being mandated to do something. And car insurance is not subsidized by the government no matter how inconvenient it is, either, which makes it even worse if you basically have to use a car to function in life.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

There are many places in America where not owning a car is not even remotely an option.

GabuEx

One may have to adjust their way of life significantly, but it isn't mandated simply by virtue of existence.

Yes, one may have to adjust their way of life in terms of not having a job, not being able to get groceries... there is absolutely no practical difference between that and just flat-out being mandated to do something. And car insurance is not subsidized by the government no matter how inconvenient it is, either, which makes it even worse if you basically have to use a car to function in life.

In a practical sense, the difference is many people do not drive automobiles whom could if they wished to but do not and subsequently do not pay car insurance. The others are mandated to pay for car insurance due to factors aside government. I fail to realize how this qualitatively differs from one whom pays for gasoline just to get from point a to point b. They both require one to pay in order to receive a service. In one case, one pays taxes, abides by the rules of the road (which they are not the sole owner of) which include purchasing car insurance. Their life would be uncomfortable if they were to opt out of car insurance by not driving. In the other case, one pays for gasoline for the same reason they pay for car insurance. To transport themselves. Is one now legally mandated to purchase gasoline? Maybe, but not in the same respect that one is required to pay for health insurance.

Like there are many who do not drive, there are many people whom can (not that it would necessarily be monetarily comfortable) pay for health insurance whom do not wish to do so. Others it is already out of necessity, because their lives would be uncomfortable without health insurance due to non-legal consequences. This situation is more analogous to the car insurance scenario. One can opt out of medical service without health insurance, but it would not be in their practical interest to do so. However, this health care mandate would be more equivalent to forcing people to pay for car insurance whom do not drive.

Then of course there are other issues such as the fact that the Federal Government does not legally require one to purchase car insurance, but rather the states do. The issue in court is whether or not the Federal Government has the legal authority to require people to purchase car insurance. So essentially, if I were to concede that mandating that drivers purchase car insurance is equivalent to to mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance, that would be entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The analogy is quite problematic.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

One may have to adjust their way of life significantly, but it isn't mandated simply by virtue of existence.

coolbeans90

Yes, one may have to adjust their way of life in terms of not having a job, not being able to get groceries... there is absolutely no practical difference between that and just flat-out being mandated to do something. And car insurance is not subsidized by the government no matter how inconvenient it is, either, which makes it even worse if you basically have to use a car to function in life.

In a practical sense, the difference is many people do not drive automobiles whom could if they wished to but do not and subsequently do not pay car insurance. The others are mandated to pay for car insurance due to factors aside government. I fail to realize how this qualitatively differs from one whom pays for gasoline just to get from point a to point b. They both require one to pay in order to receive a service. In one case, one pays taxes, abides by the rules of the road (which they are not the sole owner of) which include purchasing car insurance. Their life would be uncomfortable if they were to opt out of car insurance by not driving. In the other case, one pays for gasoline for the same reason they pay for car insurance. To transport themselves. Is one now legally mandated to purchase gasoline? Maybe, but not in the same respect that one is required to pay for health insurance.

Like there are many who do not drive, there are many people whom can (not that it would necessarily be monetarily comfortable) pay for health insurance whom do not wish to do so. Others it is already out of necessity, because their lives would be uncomfortable without health insurance due to non-legal consequences. This situation is more analogous to the car insurance scenario. One can opt out of medical service without health insurance, but it would not be in their practical interest to do so. However, this health care mandate would be more equivalent to forcing people to pay for car insurance whom do not drive.

Then of course there are other issues such as the fact that the Federal Government does not legally require one to purchase car insurance, but rather the states do. The issue in court is whether or not the Federal Government has the legal authority to require people to purchase car insurance. So essentially, if I were to concede that mandating that drivers purchase car insurance is equivalent to to mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance, that would be entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The analogy is quite problematic.

But the fact remains that there do exist people for whom not owning a car is quite literally not an option if they wish to have a functioning life. Those people basically are mandated to buy car insurance - it is not an extra cost associated with a luxury, but is rather more or less something they have to do to exist. This is the exact same situation one is in when one is mandated to buy health insurance.

And the question about federal or state government is a side issue - the objection most raise to the individual mandate is not the level of government at which it occurs, but rather the concept itself of a government forcing people to buy something.

One can argue that America is broke and flat out cannot afford to pay for government health insurance and there is little anyone can do to refute that. There are other arguments on how its un constitutional, which I partly agree with.However that aside, another problem I have with it is that America has a serious underlying overall health problem and its because people are fat. Ya ya... laugh... but only 32% of the US population is of a healthy body weight (Scientific American, Oct 2010). Why is it fair that people pay for others to live an unhealthy life style??

The big problem is that people in this country do not want to do anything for themselves anymore... its always gimmie gimmie gimmie. They want to be fat... and have free health insurance. If the country is going to go down that road, which I clearly disagree with, then they need to go all in. Make unhealthy people pay extra for the burden. A healthy normal person should pay X for insurance... someone thats fat will pay X ammount of dollars higher in covereage... they need to make up that difference. Of course that would bring a rain of never ending lawsuits.

One can argue that America is broke and flat out cannot afford to pay for government health insurance and there is little anyone can do to refute that. Except that the federal government isn't paying for healh insurance, for anybody... There are other arguments on how its un constitutional, which I partly agree with. However that aside, another problem I have with it is that America has a serious underlying overall health problem and its because people are fat. Not according to this Columiba study, no. Ya ya... laugh... but only 32% of the US population is of a healthy body weight (Scientific American, Oct 2010). Why is it fair that people pay for others to live an unhealthy life ****?

The big problem is that people in this country do not want to do anything for themselves anymore... its always gimmie gimmie gimmie. They want to be fat... and have free health insurance. No one is getting "free health insurance" from this bill... If the country is going to go down that road, which I clearly disagree with, then they need to go all in. Make unhealthy people pay extra for the burden. A healthy normal person should pay X for insurance... someone thats fat will pay X ammount of dollars higher in covereage... they need to make up that difference. Of course that would bring a rain of never ending lawsuits.

Chrypt22

[QUOTE="Chrypt22"]

One can argue that America is broke and flat out cannot afford to pay for government health insurance and there is little anyone can do to refute that. Except that the federal government isn't paying for healh insurance, for anybody... There are other arguments on how its un constitutional, which I partly agree with. However that aside, another problem I have with it is that America has a serious underlying overall health problem and its because people are fat. Not according to this Columiba study, no. Ya ya... laugh... but only 32% of the US population is of a healthy body weight (Scientific American, Oct 2010). Why is it fair that people pay for others to live an unhealthy life ****?

The big problem is that people in this country do not want to do anything for themselves anymore... its always gimmie gimmie gimmie. They want to be fat... and have free health insurance. No one is getting "free health insurance" from this bill... If the country is going to go down that road, which I clearly disagree with, then they need to go all in. Make unhealthy people pay extra for the burden. A healthy normal person should pay X for insurance... someone thats fat will pay X ammount of dollars higher in covereage... they need to make up that difference. Of course that would bring a rain of never ending lawsuits.

Former_Slacker

Well, technically speaking, the federal government does subsidize those who can't pay for health insurance, so it is (or I should say will be) paying for some people's health insurance in part.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yes, one may have to adjust their way of life in terms of not having a job, not being able to get groceries... there is absolutely no practical difference between that and just flat-out being mandated to do something. And car insurance is not subsidized by the government no matter how inconvenient it is, either, which makes it even worse if you basically have to use a car to function in life.

GabuEx

In a practical sense, the difference is many people do not drive automobiles whom could if they wished to but do not and subsequently do not pay car insurance. The others are mandated to pay for car insurance due to factors aside government. I fail to realize how this qualitatively differs from one whom pays for gasoline just to get from point a to point b. They both require one to pay in order to receive a service. In one case, one pays taxes, abides by the rules of the road (which they are not the sole owner of) which include purchasing car insurance. Their life would be uncomfortable if they were to opt out of car insurance by not driving. In the other case, one pays for gasoline for the same reason they pay for car insurance. To transport themselves. Is one now legally mandated to purchase gasoline? Maybe, but not in the same respect that one is required to pay for health insurance.

Like there are many who do not drive, there are many people whom can (not that it would necessarily be monetarily comfortable) pay for health insurance whom do not wish to do so. Others it is already out of necessity, because their lives would be uncomfortable without health insurance due to non-legal consequences. This situation is more analogous to the car insurance scenario. One can opt out of medical service without health insurance, but it would not be in their practical interest to do so. However, this health care mandate would be more equivalent to forcing people to pay for car insurance whom do not drive.

Then of course there are other issues such as the fact that the Federal Government does not legally require one to purchase car insurance, but rather the states do. The issue in court is whether or not the Federal Government has the legal authority to require people to purchase car insurance. So essentially, if I were to concede that mandating that drivers purchase car insurance is equivalent to to mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance, that would be entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The analogy is quite problematic.

But the fact remains that there do exist people for whom not owning a car is quite literally not an option if they wish to have a functioning life. Those people basically are mandated to buy car insurance - it is not an extra cost associated with a luxury, but is rather more or less something they have to do to exist. This is the exact same situation one is in when one is mandated to buy health insurance.

And the question about federal or state government is a side issue - the objection most raise to the individual mandate is not the level of government at which it occurs, but rather the concept itself of a government forcing people to buy something.

Just as much as they are legally mandated to buy food. Not mandated by law, but personal interest to live the way that they wish. If they didn't desire to do so, they wouldn't have to purchase automobile insurance under penalty of law. But regardless, they would still have to purchase health insurance. This is a highly relevant qualitative difference between "mandating" car and mandating health insurance.

I concur that many disagree with the idea forcing of individuals of purchasing something on an ideological basis. If one says that they oppose the notion of government forcing people being purchased to buy something, countering them with car insurance has a few issues. First, one might very well disagree with the notion that car insurance is mandated in the same manner health insurance is. Secondly, this in no way counters the argument that government shouldn't mandate purchases.

If on a practical level, one raises the objection that government isn't allowed to mandate the purchase of health insurance, one can disagree and mention that the states do. (I wouldn't use car insurance as an example) Then the argument shifts to whether or not the Federal Government, the body which enacted the individual mandate, has the legal authority to do so.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You can opt out of using automobiles. Not equivalent to being forced to buy health insurance merely for existing. One of numerous flaws in the analogy. Not the same thing.

coolbeans90

No one is required to purchase automobile insurance. If and only if one chooses to drive an automobile on public roads, they are required to purchase auto insurance. This brings up another point. One need not have car insurance unless they drive on public roads. The rules of the transportation system, being public, are determined by institutions elected by the "owners" of the road. This is an extenuating factor in the analogy which points out another flaw. Essentially, one doesn't own the entire transportation system, and likewise are subject to rules regarding the use of it, which happen to include have a car insurance policy.One is also required to purchase a ticket if they wish to fly, but that doesn't necessitate that one has to buy a ticket. They can simply choose not to fly.

With health insurance, one is required to purchase insurance for merely existing.

Very poor analogy.