"...first time the government has forced us to buy a product" MY ASS!

[rateyes]

If I want access to the nation's highways in my automobile, I am forced by government to buy a driver's license, and INSURANCE. If I don't buy either, I am penalized...sometimes with jail time.

If I want to go hunting or fishing, I am forced by government to purchase a license. If I don't buy one and kill a fish or a deer, I can be penalized with heavy fines and imprisonment.

Hell, if I want access to a national park, such as Vicksburg, I have to buy a pass. If I don't and go in anyway, I can be arrested.

So, now, if I want access to health care, I have to have insurance that is practically given to me if I cannot afford to buy it on my own. If I do not purchase it, I still get to be a freeloader and get care, I won't go to jail, and I pay a nominal penalty for the privelege of being a freeloader.

So, what is the big fucking deal?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. We're all forced to buy Medicare, too.

[rateyes]

3. true

[dragonlady]

25. And most of us are impatiently waiting

until we can start being covered by Medicare.

[former9thward]

75. Medicare is not a third party for profit company.

Now is it?

[rateyes]

103. ever heard of part d?

[former9thward]

105. Fail.

Part D is voluntary. Apparently you haven't heard of it.

[rateyes]

107. yes it is. so is health insurance.

however, like part d, if you dont get it, then need it, you can pick it up after paying the penalty for not getting it in the first place.

[former9thward]

160. No health insurance is mandated.

It is not voluntary. You pay the penalty for not having it. You do not pay a penalty for not having part D. Of course you know that and are just trying to throw BS and see if anything sticks.

[rateyes]

164. you do pay a penalty for part d

if you pick up the insurance at a later date. but, you should know that.

[TreasonousBastard]

126. No, but what's your point? You're forced to pay into...

a healthcare plan you might get to use sometime in the future. Whether it's private or public is really just quibbling.

[eridani]

140. Except that the private entities are mass murderers n/t

[former9thward]

162. Maybe being forced to pay a for profit insurance company is just quibling to you.

Not to me and a great many others.

[rateyes]

166. so you would rather that my insurance premiums rise

to take care of those who can afford it but wont purchase it.

look i blasted Obama for not having the public option, but not for the mandate. The mandate with a public option is the policy that would have really brought prices down. and, with the provision that we get a rebate if the insurance companies dont spend 80% of our premium on our health care, we are on our way to single payer.

take a win when u see one.

[former9thward]

167. I would call it a win if I thought for one minute the premiums

were not going to rise. The ACA was about access not cost controls. Very little in the ACA about cost and what is in there is wrist slapping at best.

[rateyes]

168. medical loss ratio and the mandate is all about cost.

[HopeHoops]

2. There's a tax on clothing in most states. There's tax on gas, spirits, and cigarettes.

About the ONLY thing that isn't taxed at the retail level is much of the food. But the farmers, truckers, and grocers are all taxed so technically we're paying for that tax as well.

[rateyes]

4. yep

[Fawke Em]

5. Food is taxed in Tennessee. eom

[HopeHoops]

13. Even fresh produce?

[d_r]

85. yes full rate all food

[rateyes]

124. TN doesnt have income tax, though.

[Fawke Em]

129. Which is backwards.

Eat... die.

Make tons of income... live.

[obamanut2012]

149. NC does

And everything is taxed here, including all kinds of food and meds.

[HopeHoops]

152. Well THAT fucking sucks.

[d_r]

161. yup

very regressive tax here. High sales tax, no income tax, many common folks think it is great and fair because everyone pays equal taxes on what they spend and they are so happy not to have income tax; they don't understand how regressive it is or what it means.

[jmowreader]

125. Food is also taxed in Idaho

And we have all the other taxes--income, property, etc., etc.

[xoom]

138. But the federal government is not forcing me to buy clothing, gas or cigarettes.

But they are forcing me to purchase health care. There is a difference.

[HopeHoops]

155. Not having healthcare is a sign of stupidity.

If you choose to go without, the penalty is far cheaper than buying it. That said, not having it is just stupid. Even with fairly good health insurance, I've got bills on my desk right now that far exceed the penalty. Without it, I wouldn't have a chance of paying the cost of the ambulances and hospital stays. You might think you'll never need it - I did. But when you do, it's not something to sneeze at. If you don't have insurance now, I would suggest you get it just as a precaution. Even a catastrophic policy is better than nothing. It is naive to think you don't need it.

[obamanut2012]

148. Food is taxed here

Everying is, except, I think, ice and newspapers.

[NCTraveler]

6. Still don't see where you are forced to buy a for profit product from a private company.

Car insurance is state law.

[rateyes]

31. name a state without it,

and under the commerce clause the federal govt can regulate it, too.

[NCTraveler]

37. State. You said it.

Feds. Yes to regulate commerce, no to creating commerce.

[rateyes]

49. state is government

[former9thward]

77. You don't know the Constitution, do you?

State constitutions do not have the limits on their authority that the federal constitution does. All the difference in the world.

[rateyes]

101. States cannot pass laws contrary to the federal Constitution.

Georgia cannot pass a law establishing a state church, etc. When Brown v. BOE was passed, some states refused to integrate the schools, up to the moment the federal government told them integrate, or else. i am well aware of the 10th amendmendment of the us constitution.

The states can mandate that I buy auto insurance if i wany access to the public highways.

And, the US constitution says the federal govt can mandate that i purchase health insurance if I want access to the health care system.....so says the supreme court.

The only point i was making is that this is not the first time government has mandated the purchase of a product for the privilege of access to a service.

[former9thward]

106. Your have a lack of knowledge about the Constitution.

It IS the first time the federal government has mandated the purchase of a product from a third party for profit company. The states do have the right to do things the federal government is not allowed to do. The federal constitution limits the ability of the federal government to do things that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore most 'policing' powers are reserved to the states. Car insurance is one of those.

[rateyes]

111. show me in the op where i ever used the word federal.

it is NOT the first time GOVERNMENT has mandated purchase of a product from a third party.

Hell, its not even the first time the federal government mandated the purchase of health insurance from a third party. i refer you to

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/01/eye-on-boise-use-care-when-invoking-founding/

[former9thward]

163. Of course you did not use the word federal.

Because you wanted to confuse people. ACA is a federal law so we use the federal constitution and state constitution and laws can't be used to back up what Congress does.

So now you are going back to the 1790s to back up the mandate. Classic. I guess you have joined the Originalists camp that Scalia heads up. If you have to go back to 1790 to find some obscure law to back up the mandate you are in trouble. Why hasn't the federal government done this through out our history? Obviously they thought it was not a good idea and not constitutional.

[rateyes]

165. the post wasnt designed to be a states rights argument.

it was simply to put down the idea that we have never been mandated to purchase a product.

And, it is hard to make the argument that the feds hadnt done it before because it is unconstitutional when the FRAMERS did it before and the SCOTUS just declared it constitutional.

[rateyes]

116. and, i never said that the states didnt have the right to do things the feds cant.

i said the states cant do things that are in conflict with the federal constitution. The state government has to have a warrant to search your home, the states cannot establish a state religion, etc. Again, you are claiming I said things I never said...setting up a straw man argument.

[HopeHoops]

156. Gray area. The 10th does give the right to states that aren't assigned to the federal level.

In this case, it IS the federal level. The states have some flexibility, but it is still a federal law.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

114. Tell me the average American gives a flying shit about state vs federal jurisdiction. What

in the hell does it matter if the outcome is the same. This is such a severely weak argument.

I would only believe it if the same people who are against a federal health care law, would
be activists for state health care programs. And, since they are not...one can only conclude
that this is NOT about state vs. federal, but about I don't care

[rateyes]

119. hi friend

long time no see.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

151. I know....How are ya ?? Exciting times

in politics, huh. I am confident. I even paid for an apt 3 blocks from the Capitol
for the inauguration. On July 9th, Southwest opens up their bookings thru
Jan 2013, and I will be ready at 12:01 a.m.

[rateyes]

154. good for you!!

[NCTraveler]

141. "What in the hell does it matter if the outcome is the same."

Matters a lot to the courts.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

150. Not my point though. My point is that these people are hiding behind

this state vs fed argument, without promoting health care in either.

If your heart was in the right place, you would first be an advocate
for health care opportunity, then secondarily care about whether
the state or the feds provide it.

[sabrina 1]

73. Who owns the highway system?

Which Private Corporation?

I shouldn't ask though, because the way this country is going, and seeing that there is support for it, all of our public owned assets, will soon be privately owned.

Thanks for reminding us that this is where we are headed.

Fyi, profits that go to Private Corps do not necessarily serve the 'common good'.

[Crabby Appleton]

95. Most states require proof of financial responsibility - not necessarily private insurance

for instance in California, Texas, Ohio you can get a certificate of self insurance from the DMV by making a cash or government bond deposit with the state. Here's CA's:

...

evidence of financial responsibility


In some cases, you may also be requested to submit additional insurance information to DMV by providing:

A document or identification card from your insurance company.
A DMV authorization letter, if you are a cash depositor or are self-insured.

...

Types of financial responsibility

A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.
For information regarding cash deposits, or self insurance, please contact DMV Financial Responsibility Unit, at [phone].

see:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

[PADemD]

48. Medicare part D

[rateyes]

59. good point

[boppers]

127. You are allowed to buy from non-profit co-ops if you want.

For health, and car, insurance.

[soccer1]

7. Well, I do understand the accusation.....

but I have no problem with the "mandate" for health insurance. All of the situations you mentioned offer a "choice". A person doesn't have to get a driver's license or a hunting license, etc. and if they choose not to, they are not penalized.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. They are penalized if they refuse to get a driver's or hunting license. They can't

drive or hunt legally. You want to make health insurance the same way? If you don't have it, you don't get to use doctors or hospitals?

[soccer1]

16. Well, even if I wanted it that way.....

people are treated whether or not they have insurance. That's the point....everyone needs to purchase insurance and if they don't they get penalized to pay their share or some of their share.

[TheKentuckian]

22. If I'm the one with the mandate then why must I purchase it from my employer

and why is my employer selecting my coverage?

I never had a big problem with any possible mandate, my problem is with this particular design.

We are dictating most citizens buy at the company store, that is beyond wrong headed. After some sensible and understandable we all should be able to log into the exchange and select our own approved plan, this plan has no ramping and in fact does everything it can to keep people in the employer based system.

The mandate is a mandate is a mandate thinking from all sides is simplistic and counter-productive resulting in a shitload of talking past each other and being on very different pages.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. Most employers will continue to provide for employee health care insurance since

they get 'incentives' to do so. Why would you want to leave an employer sponsored system? I pay $62 a month for my 'share' of the premium from my employer. And know that similar insurance in a private plan would run me around $450 a month.

[rateyes]

35. which is why we needed the public option

[soccer1]

43. Buying insurance through an employer will be less expensive....

than buying the same coverage plan through an exchange.

[PatSeg]

8. The problem

a lot of people have with the "mandate" is it says people have to buy a product from a private, profit motivated company. It would be far easier to accept if we had the option to purchase insurance from government, such as Medicare. Many people just don't trust health insurance companies and with good reason.

On the upside, I'm quite sure we'll see a public option down the road.

[soccer1]

12. I have a problem with buying from private insurance companies.....

but, we don't have a public option, yet. I don't share your confidence that a public option will be offered, in my lifetime, at least.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[PatSeg]

23. My confidence

varies on a regular basis. A lot depends on politics and the will of the people. Right now there still are a lot of people who have been brainwashed to fear government involvement in health care, though they evidently don't realize that Medicare is a government program.

It is really hard to move forward when so many voters are so ignorant.

[soccer1]

34. Yep, ignorance of the facts is the great wall....

of American society....stands in the way of moving forward in a positive way. I would say that lack of confidence in one's ability to interpret the facts allows too many to be "brainwashed" by others opinions. But, in spite of that, American society is progressing in a way that benefits the society at large, even if at a turtle's pace, at times. Getting a controversial policy passed and implemented
is like a human giving birth to an elephant.....painful....painful, painful. Bit, the reward can be worth the pain.

[PatSeg]

41. Yes, painful but inevitable

I think we tend to forget that any major legislation in the past only came after very long, hard fought battles. We take for granted Social Security, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, civil rights, and Medicare, but there was a lot of resistance to those programs as well. Then as now, opponents yelled "Socialism! Socialism!"

Some things never change, like republicans arguments against anything Democrats want to do.

[soccer1]

44. Exactly...

[Marrah_G]

15. I would prefer to give my money to the gov for single payor

[soccer1]

17. I agree!!

I'm all in favor of single payer health insurance.....some states are moving toward that goal.

[Zalatix]

18. +1,000!!!

[PatSeg]

54. Same here

I've dealt with numerous private insurance companies and none of them came close to Medicare. Plus I don't like the concept of profit in health care.

There was a time not long ago when anything health care related was non-profit and when doctors, hospitals and pharmaceuticals were not allowed to advertise. When patients became customers, it all went downhill.

[CleanLucre]

9. you can choose to drive, hunt or fish

can you choose to have a body?

[Zalatix]

19. Bingo.

[Puzzledtraveller]

39. We wanted a victory SO BAD, we didnt care what we won

well, we won jacksh*t.

[PatSeg]

24. It is more

can you choose to have a LIVE body? Dead bodies do not need to have health insurance!

[CleanLucre]

28. with ACA

can you choose to have a body that is the age that pays LESS rather than MORE?
can you choose to have a job?
can you choose to not fall between the cracks, between poor and middle class, with employers or states that don't find ways to screw us out of coverage?

[CleanLucre]

30. once you have coverage

does your income allow you to CHOOSE to actually USE it?

[PatSeg]

67. You ask very good questions,

which brings us to the biggest problem, health care is affordable for only a small percentage of people. When medicine became profit oriented, things went downhill quickly and ethics went out the window.

[CleanLucre]

74. and that's to bad

for the healers who have been and want to be part of the profession. Everything's a racket now. Tacky shit.

[PatSeg]

100. I know

There are a lot of doctors and nurses who really are dedicated to their profession, but they are working in a system that often undermines their efforts. There are many who even leave because of the business oriented aspects of health care.

Going to some medical centers reminds me of going to buy tires at Firestone. Now even doctors are obligated to upsell tests and procedures, and it is very disconcerting.

[boppers]

130. In Oregon, we passed laws that give you a choice to have a dead body.

Your state laws may vary.

[PatSeg]

143. And I'm sure those "dead bodies"

don't pay a penalty for not having health insurance.

[Occulus]

26. Moreover, in my state, you don't even need insurance to drive on public roads.

The law provides for "other surety" (I think those are the exact words used) in lieu of car insurance. True, only the very wealthy can afford to do that, but there it is.

[Arkana]

36. No, and you can't choose whether or not you will end up

in a doctor's office or emergency room at least once in your life.

But hey--as long as you make other people foot the bill, your "rights" are intact, right?

[CleanLucre]

46. that's not the point

and it doesn't make sense. Maybe you posted in the wrong place.

[treestar]

55. Exactly what Justice Ginsburg pointed out:

See ante, at 17, 25–26. This complaint, too, is spurious. Under the current health-care system, healthy persons who lack insurance receive a benefit for which they do not pay: They are assured that, if they need it, emergency medical care will be available, although they cannot afford it. See supra, at 5–6. Those who have insurance bear the cost of this guarantee. See ibid.

[CleanLucre]

58. Define "healthy"

how healthy are people with no health coverage or care who end up as a last resort in emergency or giving birth with no prenatal?

[treestar]

84. Anybody can end up in the ER at any time.

The law requires ERs not to turn anyone away. People who are uninsured yet can afford insurance take advantage of that. It results in higher costs, since the providers raise prices on others to make up for the fact that they do not get paid in the long run. The patient can even declare bankruptcy.

[girl gone mad]

113. People who are uninsured yet can afford insurance..

are billed for any care they receive.

The majority of medical bankruptcies are declared by people with insurance.

Why are these issues so hard for the mandate propagandists to understand? The only "free riders" in our current system are poor people who will still be "free riders" (horrible language) after the bill is passed. People who took care of themselves and managed to exist successfully outside of the health insurance racket are now forced to hand over money to the insurance parasites every month. And for that, they may end up underinsured and in a worse financial position than they would have been prior to the mandate. It's crappy, crappy policy for that reason.

[treestar]

117. They still can't pay it

and can declare bankruptcy. The point is no one pays.

Since the law has subsidies for people who can't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford insurance, that is a moot point.

It is what we can do until we can get single payer. Why would the status quo be better? The status quo is uninsured people only getting treatment in the ER, not being able to pay, resulting in higher prices and premiums (as Justice Ginsburg said).

[rateyes]

40. you can choose to go to doctor or not,

if you live where i do, driving is not an option. you have to do it.

[CleanLucre]

47. the OP's analogy doesn't work

that's all

[treestar]

53. You can choose whether or not you are going to go to a doctor

With no system and no insurance, how do you pay that doctor? You just choose to go without the treatment and suffer the consequences.

[CleanLucre]

56. you can choose to drive, hunt or fish. you can't choose to have a body

it's not a choice. That's it.

Every body needs health care.

No everybody needs or chooses to drive, hunt or fish.

[Ikonoklast]

81. Following your course of logic, food should be a non-profit enterprise.

Everyone, without exception, needs food.

Not everyone needs to see a doctor.

I knew people that never, and I mean *never* saw a doctor or the inside of a hospital in their entire lives, and they were pretty old when the died.

I've never met anyone that never ate a meal.

You cannot choose not to, and stay alive.

Why isn't there the same outcry over the For-Profit Food Cartel?

[CleanLucre]

87. Try following the OPs course of logic

which is what I questioned. It compares being required to purchase health insurance with licenses for optional activities. Is health care optional?

[Ikonoklast]

91. Yes, health care is optional, eating is not.

As I stated, those people I knew that never saw a doctor or the inside of a hospital were relatives of mine.

So, yes, health care was optional for them, they never needed it.

And the licenses and fees for other governmentally-controlled optional activities are taxes by another name.

Your argument and disagreement was with being forced to support a for-profit enterprise.

Every system short of a true nationalized healthcare system would do that, indirectly of course.

[CleanLucre]

94. you are confused

this was a reply to the OP you're trying to make it something else. Sorry

[treestar]

86. That was the point. Everyone needs health care

and that is why Justice Ginsburg argued that the mandate doesn't offend the Commerce Clause. Everyone is a potential needer of health care. That's what makes it different.

You can have a body, but you can choose whether or not to go to the doctor. If you don't want health coverage, you generally can't afford to go to the doctor, so that's a choice not to enter the market for medical services. Insurance is just a way of paying it. The only reason people buy health insurance is the potential for high costs - higher than you can afford out of pocket. If costs were so low, say relatively no more than food or clothes, people wouldn't need insurance to pay for it.

The only people who wouldn't need insurance on it are the rich. If $10,000 for a stay in the hospital is not a big deal to pay out, then one need not bother. Though even they will get insurance, because of illnesses that can cost a lot even for them.

[spanone]

11. i once owned a house in a flood plain...

i HAD to have flood insurance...HAD TO PURCHASE IT

[soccer1]

14. Yes, I live in a flood prone area, but...

we can choose to move to another area. Actually that's what we did. We moved to higher ground....no flood insurance required.

[CleanLucre]

20. that's because

you bought a house in the floodplain

[rateyes]

42. have to buy pmi

[former9thward]

79. No that is your mortgage company requiring that not the government.

Get real.

[meaculpa2011]

21. Your bank required flood insurance...

to protect their interest, not the government. I can buy a lovely home on an island in Great South Bay for a relatively reasonable price. It's un-insurable, therefore I can't get a mortgage. If I want to pay cash and risk a total loss in the event of hurricane, that's my choice.

Lots of apples and oranges on this thread.

[PatSeg]

27. Yes there are

And it is a productive discussion.

Flood insurance is provided through The National Flood Insurance Program, a government program.

[Igel]

60. Provided through. Not required by. The difference is important. n/t

[PatSeg]

65. It is an important distinction

There is so much misinformation out there. Discussions like this thread, really helps people to understand the issue better.

[meaculpa2011]

142. It's administered by the federal government.

I write my check to the insurance carrier, which is a division of the bank that carries my mortgage. The premium is subsidized by the government but I have been forced (by the bank) to pay a higher premium each year in spite of the fact that I've never had a drop of water my house. Through hurricanes, N'oreasters, planetary alignments... never a drop.

And for good measure, last year I was FORCED to increase my coverage to full replacement value even though I only owe the bank less than $25,000. And they do this with the full support of the puppets in the New York State Legislature. I was tempted to just pay off the mortgage and be done with it, but I only owe principal now.

Anyone that doesn't believe that the unholy alliance between the government, the banks and the insurance companies isn't "The Troika Americana" isn't paying attention.

[PatSeg]

144. That really sucks

That is insane that the premium has gone up every year at a time with property values are so low and there is nothing you can do about it. You have my sympathy.

[spanone]

61. it was govt subsidized ins.

[bupkus]

29. The big deal is

The Republicans will get out ahead of the Democrats with this bullshit meme and it will become accepted truth just like those "death panels" did.

[soccer1]

38. I don't think so.....

The republicans are just more dramatic and louder with their presentation of the "facts", so it seems like they are winning the "factual war". The Dems are out there and I believe will be more so as it gets closer to the election.

[Arkana]

33. Horseshit. Auto insurance, home insurance...

Republicans are lying fucks.

[Igel]

63. Imagine you're on the 3rd rung of a ladder.

You look down, and there are rungs below you. You look up and there are rungs above you.

Now close your eyes. You lose depth perception (you may remember relative depths, you may infer relative depths, but you're not perceiving depth).

Many of us look up and see layers of authority in a kind of hierarchy. Where I live there's the HOA; I have a mortgage. I'm in a county with laws and regulations, but no incorporated town so I have no town-level laws. There is a state government above my county, and above that there's the federal government with a mass of regulations and laws that many lawyers have trouble keeping straight.

My employer places certain restrictions on me, since I'm in a public job and have agreed to them. But my employer is also subject to restrictions and requirements by the state-level regulatory agency, and passes through some restrictions (usually grumbling as they do so). There are also federal regulations on what my employer must require of me.

All of those levels of authority above me are authority. To the man with no depth perception, they may all seem to be on one level, flat, so that the employer and the state government, the federal regulatory agency and the county fire safety authority are just "government". This makes things simpler than they are and simpler than they can be.

Home insurance results from a contract with your mortgage provider. You can drive all you want legally without auto insurance, as long as you don't go on public roads. Medicare is a tax and requires the purchase of nothing; if you decide not to use Medicare, you don't use it, but there's still the tax and the only way to opt out of paying the Medicare tax is to opt out of work. It's a penalty for work, if you want to view it that way--and that's fine, if there's no right to a job. (Otherwise you're being taxed for the exercise of your rights. How's that for a twist?)

We need a well-informed citizenry to maintain our republic. As Franklin said, we have a Republic--if we can keep it.

[oldhippie]

72. Government does not force you to buy home insurance

The mortgage lender does, to protect their investment. If you buy your house outright, with no mortgage, you are not required to have house insurance.

Most states do not require you to purchase auto insurance. There are other ways to show financial responsibility, like surety bonds and deposits.

People don't understand basic civics. There is a difference between Feds, State, local gov't, and corps. You should get to know them.

[Auntie Bush]

45. We're also forced to pay for the military Industral complex which KILLS people around the world

whether we want to or not. That thought makes me sick.

[Gregorian]

50. I'm forced to work about 1 out of 8 hours per day for the military machine.

That's about what it comes to.

[randr]

51. I just had to pay taxes to my city and state at the grocery store

FIRST TIME EVER!

[Romulox]

52. Federal vs. State government, guys. Basic civics. nt

[joeglow3]

57. I am shocked at how many people don't understand the difference

In the meantime, the insurance companies are dancing in the streets.

[Igel]

64. Another shocker.

The sheer number of posters I've seen who believe that the ultimate source of the rights of Americans is the Bill of Rights. "If it's not the source of our rights, then why is it there?"

Yup: Government is where your natural rights come from.

And, on second thought, it's after 12 m. So and .

[boppers]

133. "States rights" was changed back at the civil war.

Hint: the states lost, no matter how many times the right wing wants to keep bringing it up.

[joeglow3]

146. Please explain how.

Your 2 sentences seems to imply the 10th amendment was thrown out and the intent of the Constitution was tossed out the window.

[rateyes]

62. it is still government forcing the purchase of a product from private

companies to mandate car insurance at the state level, and u dont hear wingers griping about it. and, what about medicare part D?

I would have praeferred single payer. hopefully this is a step in the right direction. If states can force the purchase of car insurance to protect all on the road from each other, then why cant feds force health ins to protect me from paying for your healthcare..especially if u dont take care of your health?

[joeglow3]

68. The way the Constitution was written

It ONLY lists the rights the Federal government has. If what you are looking for is not on that short list, they do not have the power. States, on the other hand, have no such limitation. THAT is why there is a difference.

[oldhippie]

76. Governments have "powers" not "rights"

Those being governed have rights, derived from various sources.

[Romulox]

69. Your homework is to look up "Federalism" and understand how it applies to this question. nt

[rateyes]

90. i know what federalism is. I am simply

stating the position that being penalized for not buying a product is not a foreign concept to people, and that we shouldnt get all wigged out about this.

I know what a confederation is, what a monarchy is, what parliamentary government is, and pretty much what type of government every nation on the planet practices. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The mandate is not a big fucking deal.

[Romulox]

93. You don't *really* understand the subject, if you don't understand that what you posted is wrong...

I know it sounds smarmy and know-it-all like to say that. But it's just a plain fact.

[rateyes]

96. Yeah I really understand

Having been a teacher of civics and government. And, I agree, your response is smarmy. I know how our republic is supposed to work. Question for you...where does the MONEY come from that the STATES use for Medicaid? And, from whom is the insurance product Medicare part D purchased?

[Romulox]

97. That understanding isn't reflected in the OP or your subsequent replies. Supreme Court Cases

decide discreet legal questions. In the case of the ACA, the question was whether the Federal government could, consistent with its Commerce Clause power (or, alternatively, its Taxing power) compel all Americans to purchase private insurance.

Now, each one of those bolded phrases is key to the interplay of Federal Law and Constitutional Power that was decided in the ACA case.

When laid out like that, it's easy to see why mentioning Driver's Licenses or auto insurance are non sequiturs. In other words, these examples simply aren't relevant to any of the legal questions at play here.

[rateyes]

99. I am well aware that the rights not specified to the federal govt throughthe

constitution, nor prohibited by it are reserved to the states. in the op i did not refer to the FEDERAL government specifically. I said the government. The government of the state o GA mandates that I purchase auto insurance if i want access to the public highways and will penalize me if I dont purchase it.

The constitution of the USA allows the federal government to levy a tax penalty on me if I access the health care system but have not purcased health insurance.

I did not intend to start a debate on states rights vs the pwer of the federal govt.

My assertion is that there are products that the government, be it state or fedral, mandates that I purchase with much greater penalty than those in the ACA law if I want access to the services provided.

Having to purchase a product fr access to a service is not a unique concept.

[TheKentuckian]

66. In each example there is no universal mandate.

I never ever have to get a hunting license, visit a park, or even drive.

In each example you are being regulated in how you act within a voluntarily entered and optional agreement and at no time was your participation assumed or is the assumed participation a condition of being alive and human.

"The Deal" is yours and others forceful arguments that health care is a commodity, a privilege based on ability to pay, or at best an obligation to the community paid as a tithe to private profiteers in the defense of the codification of such.

"The Deal" is also that you tell something like 85% of us that we are not only obligated for our tithes to some corporations overpaid executives and stockholders but we don't even get to go on our tax dollar funded marketplace and to take whatever our employer select while taking advantage of our tax dollar funded incentives and tax breaks. Hell, it is our damn compensation, we should be able to take our incentives and employer contribution or fine for lack there of and vote with our pocketbooks.
My employer has ZERO bearing on my car insurance, or which National Parks I visit, or if I hunt or fish and certainly has no input on (much less strictly decides) what I would hunt and fish for if choose to do either nor am subject to a sanction for illegally hunting even if bag nor indeed shoot at any thing (unless somebody runs with Robert's conflation of tax and penalty and someone ends our tax break for not hunting illegally and suddenly we all get what used to be the penalty).

[rateyes]

104. and you arent required to buy insurance

you can pay the penalty instead.

[TheKentuckian]

158. There is no prohibition against speeding, you just pay the fine if you do

Is a pointless argument. None of our laws prevent an action but rather present a range of sanctions in response to violations.

I'm just as obligated to tithe to the cartel as I am obliged not to kill my neighbor.

[boppers]

134. You never have to go to a hospital or doctor, either.

So, have you?

[TheKentuckian]

159. You are accessed the penalty even if you don't

The law is to prevent free riders, it makes no distinction if you pay your bills despite that meaning you paid more than an insurance company would which means not only are you not a "free rider" but are net subsidizing the system and in exchange you are charged more.

Of course you may damn well go to the hospital without choosing to because you may be unconscious or otherwise not capable of making such a decision and get sent there.
In any event, it is not voluntary participation in commerce in the way the examples are. You do not choose to be ill or have any ailment and if you want to argue that then you'd better start with the Administration and the Solicitor General who argue the unique nature of the market. I only argue a step further that the nature of the situation means. Health care cannot be rationally viewed as a market at all, needs are unpredictable with huge levels of variance in actual need and excess is between difficult and impossible to measure.

Remember when all is said and done that you accepted, internalized, and advanced the backward ass notion that health care is a commodity. What is wrong with you and these others to even take that tact? Why have you accepted the far right argument? I don't care if you support a different methodology to address the argument, why have you accepted their fundamental premise? You realize we cannot get to health care as right from the perspective it is a commodity?

This is exactly where fuckers want to leave this issue! Every "fix it later" and "this is the first step" "and now the real fight begins" is a bunch of bullshit to lobby for acceptance and support of this old Heritage Foundation deviltry.

Not that long ago the "let them die" folks believed almost exactly as you do now, many of them even were ok with low income subsidies back 15-20 years ago. Now look at them, rot in your soul has consequences. Too many here think that the present depths of the radical regressive element gives them more wiggle room to be assholes without being conflated with the opposition and maybe that appears to be true in the short term but the baggage ways the same and the twisting of your thought patterns will have long range effects.

Its like doesn't apply, there is no reasonable comparison and trying to make it a market is amoral, stupid, greedy, and nonsensical. It makes more sense to have a market based military, at least there you can reasonably anticipate what may be needed.
The funny thing is most people here understand that but will try to bang the square peg into a round hole because 's that is the essence of what plan passed and so much be supported even if it means adopting the opposition's long held premise that health care is exploitable for profit, rational market which is crazy bunk.

[oldhippie]

70. You are NOT required to buy car insurance

How many times do we have to go over this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=891348

[rateyes]

92. nitpicking

what pct of drivers put up the bond?

[oldhippie]

108. What is law?

What is law? What does the Supreme Court do? Nitpick. Deal with it.

[rateyes]

109. its a difference without a distinction.

the bond is simply nothing more than "purchasing" self insurance.

[oldhippie]

110. No, it is not ....

One involves purchasing a product from another party. The other does not.

[rateyes]

112. you are purchasing a bond from the state

it s a form of self insurance.

One could say that the bond option is similar to choosing to pay the penalty rather than purcasing the insurance, and that being the case, the insurance requirement is not technically a mandate, using your logic.

[oldhippie]

153. No, you are not purchasing anything .....

... nor are you paying a penalty. If you post a bond or make the deposit, you can stop driving, and if you haven't had an accident you get your bond or deposit back. You don't get penalties back.

[notadmblnd]

71. then they will just change the argument and tell you "yes, but those are state taxes"

as if state governments are less evil that the federal government.

[Ian David]

78. We're forced to buy smoke detectors for our homes and seatbelts for our cars. n/t

[girl gone mad]

115. You are forced to buy neither homes nor cars.

[boppers]

132. Right, and if you live off the grid, you don't have to buy insurance.

Of any kind.

If you live off of the grid, however, you have to pay for the privilege.

[Ian David]

147. We have to live SOMEWHERE, and all those places have smoke detectors.

Although I suppose we COULD live in tents in the woods.

[Turbineguy]

80. The difference is

in your first 3 examples you are unlikely to die as a result of not buying the product.

With medical care it's different.

To deny you the chance for an unnecessary and early death interferes with your freedom and is un-American. To reduce the anxiety and suffering of you and your loved ones is socialism. To reduce the chance that others catch communicable diseases is naziism. And to give you the opportunity to life a long and happy life is muslinism.

That's why this whole thing is an invention of a Kenyan born crypto-communist nazi muslim who hates white people.

I hope that's clear.

[hughee99]

82. Even if you don't want access to health care, you have to buy it.

If you can afford it, but still don't buy it, you'll have to pay a fine (a tax now, I guess). You can still get care, but you'll have to pay for it. The government doesn't pick up the tab, so I'm not sure how you are defining "freeloading". Usually, I think of freeloading as getting something you didn't pay for, but in this case, you'd be paying for your own health care out of pocket AND paying the fine.

[valerief]

83. The biggest expense we're forced to pay for is WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR.

You know, the racket of the rich.

[NYC Liberal]

88. Better response: So WHAT if it IS the "first time"?

There's a first time for everything.

Social Security was a "first" for this country. So were many other programs that have been adopted and implemented.

You want to argue the merits of it? Fine. But there's nothing wrong with it simply because it's the "first time".

[Romulox]

89. It won't be the LAST time, that's "so what". nt

[NYC Liberal]

98. And?

[brewens]

102. Some history on that with this link. Gotta be careful invoking the founders.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/01/eye-on-boise-use-care-when-invoking-founding/

[girl gone mad]

118. You will never convince me that this is good policy.

The fact that Democrats are now couching their support for this corrupt coercion in the language of the far right ("freeloaders" and "personal responsibility&quot to sell it to people ought to tell you how bad it is.

[Lex]

122. No one has to.

It is going to happen.

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. Well this thread surely has been an eye opener if nothing else.

I'm shocked at the number of people who don't or can't or maybe won't make a distinction between a federal government and a national one.

[boppers]

136. ..or for-profit and non-profit, for that matter.

Too many talking points flying past each other.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

123. What About When George Washington...............

..............signed a bill into law requiring every American to own a firearm? Without starting an argument over gun ownership, doesn't that qualify as the Federal Government requiring every citizen to buy a product from a third party? And if my memory of American History is correct, I also believe George Washington MAY have been a Founding Father.

[Bluenorthwest]

157. The 'gun mandate' was not for every American, it was for 'able bodied men'.

Women, the elderly, infirm, children were no required to own such a firearm, and they comprised more than half the population, making it far, far from a law requiring 'every American to own a firearm'. So since it did not require every citizen to buy anything, and in fact required only that a person own a firearm, not that they purchase it, no it does not qualify. Not even close. Not every citizen, and no requirement to purchase at all, much less from a third party. A friend could give you a gun, you could inherit one, make your own if you had the skill.

[Rain Mcloud]

128. I predict this thread will heat up soon.

[loyalsister]

131. objects or collection of services...

that maintain and product necessary personal health and ultimate basic existence?

[Kablooie]

135. They forced us to buy a war in Iraq too. (Though some of us didn't buy it then.)

[xoom]

137. Not the same, sorry.

[Kennah]

139. That sinister bastard Obama. He did this to set the stage for Single Payer.

He got passed what he could, and the votes were as close as it could have been--in the House, Senate, and SCOTUS.

I believe ACA has set us on the course toward Single Payer. At 45, I wanna believe it will happen in my lifetime, and maybe it will. I dunno. If not, then at least future generations will benefit and gain Single Payer. The Medical Loss Ratio might be the biggest shiv that gets us there.

[lame54]

145. Even those who DON'T drive use the streets and sidewalks