Federal judge rules lawsuit against Obamacare can go to trial

[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.

coolbeans90

No one is legally mandated to buy food. People certainly are legally mandate to buy auto insurance when they own a car, and, again, there are many places - people who live in the country, people who live in a place with practically nonexistent transit system - where one cannot lead a functional life integrated into society at large without owning a car.

If one opposes the health insurance mandate yet does not oppose mandating the purchase of car insurance in a location where not owning a car is out of the question, then that is a clear logical contradiction in their positions. Pointing such a contradiction out is a standard tactic in attempting to convince someone of something.

bikes,buses,taxi's, and walking all say hello. cars make life easier but arent mandatory to me having a good life.

kayoticdreamz

Whereabouts do you live?

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[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.

GabuEx

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.

He referred to it as "free health insurance", by which I assumed he meant socialized health insurance which is not in the bill.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

bikes,buses,taxi's, and walking all say hello. cars make life easier but arent mandatory to me having a good life.

GabuEx

Whereabouts do you live?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

bikes,buses,taxi's, and walking all say hello. cars make life easier but arent mandatory to me having a good life.

kayoticdreamz

Whereabouts do you live?

There are many places that are sprawled out, making walking more or less out of the question; where bicycles were not exactly taken into consideration when designing the roads, making them terribly inconvenient; and where the transit system is in absolute shambles, making buses basically useless. Taxis, sure, but you'd have to be awfully rich to take a taxi to work every day.

[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

Ok ok... taxes are paying for other peoples health insurance.And before you say... ohh its company's that are fronting the bill... no no.. they just pass the costs along, so you are right, we do in the end. Hmmm.. suprise suprise... Columbia is trying to push an agenda. I'll sight the source that Scientific American gives. US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health, and last but not least, St Pauls Hospital, Vancouver. Ill take their word for it.

If you are just overweight... im not talking obese... just overweight, you are:

3.5 times likely to get type 2 diabetes,2x as likely to get Corinary artery disease and double the risk of dying at or before the age of 50.

If you are Obese:

11.5 times likely to get type 2 diabetes if your female (5.25 times if your male), 3x as likely to get artiery disease, and 3 times likely to die at or before 50.

The questionisnt life expectancy... its the care and money WE HAVE TO PAY for unhealthy people.By the way... if you are wondering how much we are talking??? its $147 Billion dollars. Thats the burden that fat people have on the US health care system.

Sorry if I offended anyone... but its the ugly truth. So I ask.. what is more broken the life st*yle or the health system?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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.

GabuEx

No one is legally mandated to buy food. People certainly are legally mandate to buy auto insurance when they own a car, and, again, there are many places - people who live in the country, people who live in a place with practically nonexistent transit system - where one cannot lead a functional life without owning a car.

If one opposes the health insurance mandate yet does not oppose mandating the purchase of car insurance in a location where not owning a car is out of the question, then that is a clear logical contradiction in their positions. Pointing such a contradiction out is a standard tactic in attempting to convince someone of something.

No one is legally mandated to buy food. No one is legally mandated to buy car insurance. Without either, ones quality of life could be worsened. (very extremely so in the case of food) If one is to take food from the store, they must pay for the costs required by the owner. If one is to drive on public roads, they must abide by all rules and pay the costs required by the owner(s). One can move. One can hitch rides anywhere. (... I guess that would require car insurance though, but if people carpool, one fellow is stuck with paying for insurance whereas multiple health insurance policies would be mandated)

There is no logical contradiction, but admittedly at first glance, one might think there is. There are highly relevant qualitative differences in between the two scenarios which ultimately make the analogy faulty, and utterly unconvincing. One does not own public roads, and am subject to abide by the rules in order to drive on them. Different case with health insurance.

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[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.

Chrypt22

Ok ok... taxes are paying for other peoples health insurance.And before you say... ohh its company's that are fronting the bill... no no.. they just pass the costs along, so you are right, we do in the end. What? Can you reword that I couldn't understand your point. Hmmm.. suprise suprise... Columbia is trying to push an agenda. Proof? I'll sight the source that Scientific American gives. US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health, and last but not least, St Pauls Hospital, Vancouver. Ill take their word for it. Source for what?

If you are just overweight... im not talking obese... just overweight, you are:

3.5 times likely to get type 2 diabetes,2x as likely to get Corinary artery disease and double the risk of dying at or before the age of 50.

If you are Obese:

11.5 times likely to get type 2 diabetes if your female (5.25 times if your male), 3x as likely to get artiery disease, and 3 times likely to die at or before 50.

The questionisnt life expectancy... its the care and money WE HAVE TO PAY for unhealthy people.By the way... if you are wondering how much we are talking??? its $147 Billion dollars. Thats the burden that fat people have on the US health care system. Proof for all of this?

Sorry if I offended anyone... but its the ugly truth. So I ask.. what is more broken the life st*yle or the health system?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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.

coolbeans90

No one is legally mandated to buy food. People certainly are legally mandate to buy auto insurance when they own a car, and, again, there are many places - people who live in the country, people who live in a place with practically nonexistent transit system - where one cannot lead a functional life without owning a car.

If one opposes the health insurance mandate yet does not oppose mandating the purchase of car insurance in a location where not owning a car is out of the question, then that is a clear logical contradiction in their positions. Pointing such a contradiction out is a standard tactic in attempting to convince someone of something.

No one is legally mandated to buy food. No one is legally mandated to buy car insurance. Without either, ones quality of life could be worsened. (very extremely so in the case of food) If one is to take food from the store, they must pay for the costs required by the owner. If one is to drive on public roads, they must abide by all rules and pay the costs required by the owner(s). One can move. One can hitch rides anywhere. (... I guess that would require car insurance though, but if people carpool, one fellow is stuck with paying for insurance whereas multiple health insurance policies would be mandated)

There is no logical contradiction, but admittedly at first glance, one might think there is. There are highly relevant qualitative differences in between the two scenarios which ultimately make the analogy faulty, and utterly unconvincing. One does not own public roads, and am subject to abide by the rules in order to drive on them. Different case with health insurance.

You might as well then say that no one is legally mandated to buy health insurance under the health reform law, since there is always the option of suicide instead.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No one is legally mandated to buy food. People certainly are legally mandate to buy auto insurance when they own a car, and, again, there are many places - people who live in the country, people who live in a place with practically nonexistent transit system - where one cannot lead a functional life without owning a car.

If one opposes the health insurance mandate yet does not oppose mandating the purchase of car insurance in a location where not owning a car is out of the question, then that is a clear logical contradiction in their positions. Pointing such a contradiction out is a standard tactic in attempting to convince someone of something.

GabuEx

No one is legally mandated to buy food. No one is legally mandated to buy car insurance. Without either, ones quality of life could be worsened. (very extremely so in the case of food) If one is to take food from the store, they must pay for the costs required by the owner. If one is to drive on public roads, they must abide by all rules and pay the costs required by the owner(s). One can move. One can hitch rides anywhere. (... I guess that would require car insurance though, but if people carpool, one fellow is stuck with paying for insurance whereas multiple health insurance policies would be mandated)

There is no logical contradiction, but admittedly at first glance, one might think there is. There are highly relevant qualitative differences in between the two scenarios which ultimately make the analogy faulty, and utterly unconvincing. One does not own public roads, and am subject to abide by the rules in order to drive on them. Different case with health insurance.

You might as well then say that no one is legally mandated to buy health insurance under the health reform law, since there is always the option of suicide instead.

Well, they are legally required to purchase until they die. So yes, it is still legally mandated. And the opt out sucks a lot worse than moving to an area with a decent public transportation system or getting a job within biking/walking distance.

[QUOTE="Chrypt22"]

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

Former_Slacker

Ok ok... taxes are paying for other peoples health insurance.And before you say... ohh its company's that are fronting the bill... no no.. they just pass the costs along, so you are right, we do in the end. What? Can you reword that I couldn't understand your point.You stated the government isnt paying for the health insurance, I said youre right.. its taxes.Obama says its"rich people and certain companies." Im saying those company's and rich people that own the company's shift the cost to the consumer.Hmmm.. suprise suprise... Columbia is trying to push an agenda. Proof?Mainly my opinion, Columbia is awidely know liberal school so its no suprise they would come out with a survey that supports a liberal cause.I'll sight the source that Scientific American gives. US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Health, and last but not least, St Pauls Hospital, Vancouver. Ill take their word for it. Source for what? Again, please reference the first post. You said, "Not according to Columbia...." instead of quoting a magazine, I gave you the sources they used for the article, that more or less refutes the Columbia study.

If you are just overweight... im not talking obese... just overweight, you are:

3.5 times likely to get type 2 diabetes,2x as likely to get Corinary artery disease and double the risk of dying at or before the age of 50.

If you are Obese:

11.5 times likely to get type 2 diabetes if your female (5.25 times if your male), 3x as likely to get artiery disease, and 3 times likely to die at or before 50.

The questionisnt life expectancy... its the care and money WE HAVE TO PAY for unhealthy people.By the way... if you are wondering how much we are talking??? its $147 Billion dollars. Thats the burden that fat people have on the US health care system. Proof for all of this?http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dying-to-eat(which they got from the sources I stated above) or here:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158948.phpTake ur pick.

There is another study thatsays $344 billion, but it seems a little bloated... ill go with the one with hard proof.

Sorry if I offended anyone... but its the ugly truth. So I ask.. what is more broken the life st*yle or the health system?

The gov't needs to stop ****ing around with this attempt to regulate healthcare as a private industry and just take over most of it.

I predict that the states' Attorneys General will win this case, and the Federal Government will have to back off of trying to force everyone to buy health insurance.

[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

Auto insurrance is not required in all states. Besides that, driving is not a right. It's a priveledge. Living is a right.

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

No, not even close. You aren't always forced to buy car insurrance, and besides that, you have to purchasethe car. Auto insurrance is a part of that purchase. Besides that, auto insurrance is a minor expense compared to health care. If they're going to do national health care, they should have done the single payer system.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Whereabouts do you live?

GabuEx

There are many places that are sprawled out, making walking more or less out of the question; where bicycles were not exactly taken into consideration when designing the roads, making them terribly inconvenient; and where the transit system is in absolute shambles, making buses basically useless. Taxis, sure, but you'd have to be awfully rich to take a taxi to work every day.

Then you have horse and buggy. I saw them where I used to live all the time (Amish, Mennonite, etc.). Many retired people don't drive either.

How do you think people in rural areas managed to survive before the automobile was invented? It's not like surviving without cars hasn't been done before.

Good, maybe now the Supreme Court can shut these idiots up and tell them to get the hell out of the way of 20th century health policy, unless they still haven't gotten over the hangover from when they ruled on Citizens United.

Theokhoth

You might as well then say that no one is legally mandated to buy health insurance under the health reform law, since there is always the option of suicide instead.

GabuEx

THey should've just raised everyone's taxes and said you would get tax cut if you had medical insurance. No forcing people to buy it there, its an incentive to get it. But in reality, I've been forced to buy car insurance for I don't know how long under worse penatlies then bonus taxes. The arguement could be made that its a choice to own a car, but really, it isn't. My city's public transportation is crap.

THey should've just raised everyone's taxes and said you would get tax cut if you had medical insurance. No forcing people to buy it there, its an incentive to get it. But in reality, I've been forced to buy car insurance for I don't know how long under worse penatlies then bonus taxes. The arguement could be made that its a choice to own a car, but really, it isn't. My city's public transportation is crap.

Grodus5

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

On3ShotOneKill

I don't own car insurance. So obviously there isn't a mandate for everyone to buy car insurance just if they are alive.

Really, the car insurance comparison is utterly terrible because you can opt not to drive. The only way this arguement makes sense is if you believe that those who don't want to/cannot pay for health insurance should be killed/commit suicide (opt not to live).

[QUOTE="Grodus5"]

THey should've just raised everyone's taxes and said you would get tax cut if you had medical insurance. No forcing people to buy it there, its an incentive to get it. But in reality, I've been forced to buy car insurance for I don't know how long under worse penatlies then bonus taxes. The arguement could be made that its a choice to own a car, but really, it isn't. My city's public transportation is crap.

LJS9502_basic

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

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

Pixel-Pirate

I don't own car insurance. So obviously there isn't a mandate for everyone to buy car insurance just if they are alive.

Really, the car insurance comparison is utterly terrible because you can opt not to drive. The only way this arguement makes sense is if you believe that those who don't want to/cannot pay for health insurance should be killed/commit suicide (opt not to live).

I don't care what anyone says "Obamacare" is working. Stop with these silly lawsuits for crying out loud.Easports48

I don't care what anyone says "Obamacare" is working. Stop with these silly lawsuits for crying out loud.Easports48

[QUOTE="Easports48"]I don't care what anyone says "Obamacare" is working. Stop with these silly lawsuits for crying out loud.testfactor888

[QUOTE="Easports48"]I don't care what anyone says "Obamacare" is working. Stop with these silly lawsuits for crying out loud.LJS9502_basic

Nealy $100 per month for me. It's ridiculous.

I don't care what anyone says "Obamacare" is working. Stop with these silly lawsuits for crying out loud.Easports48

What's working about it? My already way too high premiums are going up. My level of care has decreased. That doesn't sound like working to me.

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

Wasdie

So you don't think that people should be required to buy car insurance?

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

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

coolbeans90

It isn't mandated on a Federal level however. That is done by the states, and the legal argument is that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do so. Furthermore, I think the analogy is inherently flawed since one can opt out of car insurance by not driving.

So you can opt out by avoiding buying something you want to buy? Sounds like the same sort of thing to me.

When it comes down it, you are being forced to buy something against your will as driving is pretty much a neccesity.

So what I'm basically saying is that saying that "no one should be forced to buy something" is just an ideological statemtent and not really an argument.

I see themandate as justified because people that don't have insurance are adversely affecting other people's insurance.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

GreySeal9

So you don't think that people should be required to buy car insurance?

Flawed analogy. One can opt out of using an automobile on public roads. So it's not a mandate in the same respect.

[QUOTE="Easports48"]I don't care what anyone says "Obamacare" is working. Stop with these silly lawsuits for crying out loud.LJS9502_basic

Although Easports's statement that it's working are silly because we don't know that yet, the increased rates are not due to bill itself.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

coolbeans90

So you don't think that people should be required to buy car insurance?

Flawed analogy. One can opt out of using an automobile on public roads. So it's not a mandate in the same respect.

Read my second to last post.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] While I agree with that, people are already forced to buy car insurance.....GreySeal9

It isn't mandated on a Federal level however. That is done by the states, and the legal argument is that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do so. Furthermore, I think the analogy is inherently flawed since one can opt out of car insurance by not driving.

So you can opt out by avoiding buying something you want to buy? Sounds like the same sort of thing to me.

When it comes down it, you are being forced to buy something against your will as driving is pretty much a neccesity.

So what I'm basically saying is that saying that "no one should be forced to buy something" is just an ideological statemtent and not really an argument.

I see themandate as justified because people that don't have insurance are adversely affecting other people's insurance.

The legal mandate is the issue. No one is legally mandated to purchase car insurance, or at least in no different respect to being legally mandated to purchase food. Legal mandates are separate from necesary actions to survive. They are required to purchase car insurance as the consequences of doing so would make their lives less comfortable. However, there is no such allowed option for the health insurance mandate.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It isn't mandated on a Federal level however. That is done by the states, and the legal argument is that the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do so. Furthermore, I think the analogy is inherently flawed since one can opt out of car insurance by not driving.

coolbeans90

So you can opt out by avoiding buying something you want to buy? Sounds like the same sort of thing to me.

When it comes down it, you are being forced to buy something against your will as driving is pretty much a neccesity.

So what I'm basically saying is that saying that "no one should be forced to buy something" is just an ideological statemtent and not really an argument.

I see themandate as justified because people that don't have insurance are adversely affecting other people's insurance.

The legal mandate is the issue. No one is legally mandated to purchase car insurance, or at least in no different respect to being legally mandated to purchase food. Legal mandates are separate from necesary actions to survive. They are required to purchase car insurance as the consequences of doing so would make their lives less comfortable. However, there is no such allowed option for the health insurance mandate.

There are differences between car insurance and health insurance under this plan, but think about what Wasdie said.

"Nobody should be forced to buy anything."

Car insurance is a perfectly reasonable response to this because, to exersize your right to drive something that you bought, you are forced to buy something.

It's like if one was required to buy insurance for a firearm. In order to use what you bought, you are forced to buy something else.

To imply that there is a choice there is to represent a false choice as a true one IMO. At some point you being forced to do something against your will.

Now the differences are perfectly applicable if one wants to say that car insurance is okay while the health insurance mandate is not, but the whole "nobody should be forced to buy anything," is about just as relevant as saying"people shoud be able to say whatever they want," IMO when, that is just not really in the realm of reality in our particularl society.

[QUOTE="daqua_99"]

I honestly do not understand the problem Americans have with changes to the Health system. Isn't it in everybody's best interest to have a fit and healthy workforce that can ultimately be more productive then a workforce that is not?

This is why I thank God every day that I am Australian ...

gameguy6700

It's only the conservatives who are against it, but with good reason seeing as how they've never been wrong about this kind of stuff before...

I find this funny because I class myself as a conservative yet I believe in "equality of opportunity", meaning everyone being able to have access to services to reach their full potential. Thus public health, safety and education are paramount to my belief.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

So you can opt out by avoiding buying something you want to buy? Sounds like the same sort of thing to me.

When it comes down it, you are being forced to buy something against your will as driving is pretty much a neccesity.

So what I'm basically saying is that saying that "no one should be forced to buy something" is just an ideological statemtent and not really an argument.

I see themandate as justified because people that don't have insurance are adversely affecting other people's insurance.

GreySeal9

The legal mandate is the issue. No one is legally mandated to purchase car insurance, or at least in no different respect to being legally mandated to purchase food. Legal mandates are separate from necesary actions to survive. They are required to purchase car insurance as the consequences of doing so would make their lives less comfortable. However, there is no such allowed option for the health insurance mandate.

There are differences between car insurance and health insurance under this plan, but think about what Wasdie said.

"Nobody should be forced to buy anything."

Car insurance is a perfectly reasonable response to this because, to exersize your right to drive something that you bought, you are forced to buy something.

It's like if one was required to buy insurance for a firearm. In order to use what you bought, you are forced to buy something else.

To imply that there is a choice there is to represent a false choice as a true one IMO. At some point you being forced to do something against your will.

Now the differences are perfectly applicable if one wants to say that car insurance is okay while the health insurance mandate is not, but the whole "nobody should be forced to buy anything," is about just as relevant as saying"people shoud be able to say whatever they want," IMO when, that is just not really in the realm of reality in our particularl society.

You are legally required to purchase something in order to be allowed to use public roads. One can opt to not drive on public roads. Basically purchasing car insurance is part of a terms of use for the roads. One is required to purchase health insurance without exception. You are not being forced to do something against your will any more than paying for something you purchased is forcing you to buy something.

The analogy is broken. It is one thing to argue that one should be be legally required to purchase something. It is another to draw parallels from this analogy, which don't hold highly relevant factors constant. The firearm insurance does support a much stronger argument since public roads are removed from the picture. However, people are not required to purchase firearms, unless they own firearms, unlike health care, which is mandated regardless.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The legal mandate is the issue. No one is legally mandated to purchase car insurance, or at least in no different respect to being legally mandated to purchase food. Legal mandates are separate from necesary actions to survive. They are required to purchase car insurance as the consequences of doing so would make their lives less comfortable. However, there is no such allowed option for the health insurance mandate.

coolbeans90

There are differences between car insurance and health insurance under this plan, but think about what Wasdie said.

"Nobody should be forced to buy anything."

Car insurance is a perfectly reasonable response to this because, to exersize your right to drive something that you bought, you are forced to buy something.

It's like if one was required to buy insurance for a firearm. In order to use what you bought, you are forced to buy something else.

To imply that there is a choice there is to represent a false choice as a true one IMO. At some point you being forced to do something against your will.

Now the differences are perfectly applicable if one wants to say that car insurance is okay while the health insurance mandate is not, but the whole "nobody should be forced to buy anything," is about just as relevant as saying"people shoud be able to say whatever they want," IMO when, that is just not really in the realm of reality in our particularl society.

You are legally required to purchase something in order to be allowed to use public roads. One can opt to not drive on public roads. Basically purchasing car insurance is part of a terms of use for the roads. One is required to purchase health insurance without exception. You are not being forced to do something against your will any more than paying for something you purchased is forcing you to buy something.

The analogy is broken. It is one thing to argue that one should be be legally required to purchase something. It is another to draw parallels from this analogy, which don't hold highly relevant factors constant. The firearm insurance does support a much stronger argument since public roads are removed from the picture. However, people are not required to purchase firearms, unless they own firearms, unlike health care, which is mandated regardless.

You make some verygood points (which I will get to later in this response), but the bolded is not true. Paying for something that one purchased is a clear choice. You are choosing to hand over money for something you want. The car insurance, on the other hand, is not bought out of choice (though it can be but so can health insurance),it is bought out of obligation. It has to bought in order to excersize a personal freedom. Something that one payed for does not have to be bought under any cirumstances.

But your point about the public roads is a good one it is true that it presents a "terms of use" dynamic that doesn't exist with one's health. And like I said, that is a fundamental difference that might justify why one type of"removal of choice" (healthcare)is better than the other (car insurance), but like I said, car insurance is still not a choice, but is a requirement. Any choice in the equation is a purely an illusion of choice. And if Wasdie thinks that nobody should ever have to purchase anything, he must oppose the idea of one having to buy car insurance.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

There are differences between car insurance and health insurance under this plan, but think about what Wasdie said.

"Nobody should be forced to buy anything."

Car insurance is a perfectly reasonable response to this because, to exersize your right to drive something that you bought, you are forced to buy something.

It's like if one was required to buy insurance for a firearm. In order to use what you bought, you are forced to buy something else.

To imply that there is a choice there is to represent a false choice as a true one IMO. At some point you being forced to do something against your will.

Now the differences are perfectly applicable if one wants to say that car insurance is okay while the health insurance mandate is not, but the whole "nobody should be forced to buy anything," is about just as relevant as saying"people shoud be able to say whatever they want," IMO when, that is just not really in the realm of reality in our particularl society.

GreySeal9

You are legally required to purchase something in order to be allowed to use public roads. One can opt to not drive on public roads. Basically purchasing car insurance is part of a terms of use for the roads. One is required to purchase health insurance without exception. You are not being forced to do something against your will any more than paying for something you purchased is forcing you to buy something.

The analogy is broken. It is one thing to argue that one should be be legally required to purchase something. It is another to draw parallels from this analogy, which don't hold highly relevant factors constant. The firearm insurance does support a much stronger argument since public roads are removed from the picture. However, people are not required to purchase firearms, unless they own firearms, unlike health care, which is mandated regardless.

You make some verygood points (which I will get to later in this response), but the bolded is not true. Paying for something that one purchased is a clear choice. You are choosing to hand over money for something you want. The car insurance, on the other hand, is not bought out of choice (though it can be but so can health insurance),it is bought out of obligation. It has to bought in order to excersize a personal freedom. Something that one payed for does not have to be bought under any cirumstances.

But your point about the public roads is a good one it is true that it presents a "terms of use" dynamic that doesn't exist with one's health. And like I said, that is a fundamental difference that might justify why one type of"removal of choice" (healthcare)is better than the other (car insurance), but like I said, car insurance is still not a choice, but is a requirement. Any choice in the equation is a purely an illusion of choice. And if Wasdie thinks that nobody should ever have to purchase anything, he must oppose the idea of one having to buy car insurance.

I'll admit that one isn't exactly receiving anything in return for their money put towards their insurance, but one's personal freedom isn't exactly being violated when they are forbidden to drive on roads which are not theirs. Granted that they have some stake in the roads from taxes, but that does not allow them license to dictate every single rule of the road. Car insurance is bought out of choice to use the roads as a condition. In that respect, it is parallel to a purchase.

The topic of discussion isn't removal of choice so much as the legal removal of choice. One is required to purchase car insurance if they use public roads. (in other words, they are expected to follow certain rules if they wish to use that service) However, one is required to purchase health insurance regardless of their choice to utilize a service. I can see where you are coming from with the suggestion that requiring car insurance is a removal of choice, however, one already is using a service which requires obligations to certain rules in order to utilize those services. There is conceptually speaking, some sort of contractual obligation one enters into with respect to using roads. I think that this fundamentally differs from health insurance.(then again... see next paragraph) I'll have to argue that whether or not choice is an illusion is irrelevant. Remove public roads from the picture, and I'll agree that Wasdie should not agree with mandating car insurance. (much akin to your mention of firearm insurance)

Although in fairness to the analogy, something just came to mind. I suppose that one could legitimately bring up the argument that since hospitals are required to treat all persons in life-threatening situations regardless of ability to pay, so since anyone can have access to emergency treatment, that having some sort of insurance with respect to life threatening situations may be a reasonable expectation from a legal standpoint. Then of course the argument would more onto what qualifies as proper "health insurance" and if that is effectively similar to what is in the bill. On the other hand one could argue that since one has no choice with respect to having this option from the hospitals that one has the service legally forced upon them, which differs from the automobiles. Anyway, just another dimension to the argument that I thought that I overlooked which should be mentioned.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

coolbeans90

So you don't think that people should be required to buy car insurance?

Flawed analogy. One can opt out of using an automobile on public roads. So it's not a mandate in the same respect.