Nobody is being FORCED to buy health insurance..what the administration seems to not get about ACA

[Bill USA]

the Corporate Lobbyist Judges making up the Roberts Gang can't stop obsessing about the question: can the Government force someone to buy health insurance? Is it forcing people to buy something any rational person would buy if they could afford it?

'You Can Make People Buy Broccoli’: Scalia Goes After Health Care Law - http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/27/you-can-make-people-buy-broccoli-scalia-goes-after-health-care-law/

Even the administration doesn't seem to 'get it' about what the ACA really is.

Nobody's being FORCED to buy anything.

The ACA is the community, that is all of us interested in functioning as a community, (through the agency of the government) giving people the opportunity to obtain health insurance at an affordable price - which won't be denied you because of pre-existing conditions, or if you are unemployed between jobs, or if you start getting too sick, ....or if you can't afford it. Nobody is being forced to buy anything.

If a person doesn't want to get medical insurance you can pass on the deal. Of course if you pass, you will be expected to contribute to help support the community's efforts to compensate hospitals for providing care for those who don't have medical insurance and cannot pay for the care received (the Disproportionate Care Hospital program). I mean let's be realistic, if you aren't going to have medical insurance it's only a matter of time before you will need help paying for your medical care. Certainly the Roberts Gang can appreciate that this only the responsible thing to do - to help fund the program you apparently plan on depending upon to pay for your medical care. In fact, this is not all that different from the "Health Savings" plan some Republicans have suggested except that it is a group health savings plan. So what's to object to about that, Messers Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy et al?

[mike_c]

1. not so....

The issue is that everyone is being forced to make health insurance companies profitable. There are lots of countries that require citizens to carry health insurance but every one that I'm aware of either makes it unlawful to profit from that insurance OR they provide low cost public alternatives.

I am implacably opposed to for-profit health insurance. As you say, any prudent person who possibly can carries health insurance *in this country with it's regressive health care delivery system*-- in my case it's provided by my employer-- but I despise it and would LOVE to see my insurance company bankrupt, it's executives begging on the street (or doing productive labor somewhere instead), and it's assets seized to pay it's debts. I'm sick of the goddamned greed that EVERYTHING seems to revolve around in this country. It's time to get profit out of health care, and most especially to boot the middle men who serve no function other than siphoning off a large proportion of health care costs as personal profit made on the backs of the sick and injured.

[Bill USA]

2. I was very pissed off when the Public option was thrown overboard.

[Bill USA]

4. do not dismay, when the supremes strike down the ACA, single payer will be not far away.

[kestrel91316]

5. + 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

[Bill USA]

7. actually I am talking about the law that is being reviewed by the court. you are taking a step back

from the law and looking at all options - one of which (single payer) was ruled out before the ACA was written.

My point is that, in reality, since nobody is going to get through life without needing medical care, nobody is being FORCED to get medical insurance. People do have the option to say "no thanks" to medical insurance but they were wrong in calling the resultant fee a penalty. It should have been recognized - in the law - as a contribution to the community's effort (through the agency of the government) to compensate hospitals for providing medical care for those who cannot pay for it. Anybody who chooses (note 'choose' means I am not talking about people who can't afford it) to NOT get medical insurance will inevitably be among those who will someday need medical treatment but will not be able to pay for it. At that point it will be up to the community - all of us taxpayers - to pay for their medical care. So it's legitimate to expect them to kick in something to that fund which will pay for their medical care at some time in the future.

The question of whether we need to keep for profit insurers in business and would be better off with a single payer system is another discussion. (I think the answer to that question should be obvious)

[Fumesucker]

8. Are you claiming that people in the US do not die because they lack access to health care?

[sad sally]

13. Yes, yes and yes

Private insurance companies - those leaches who've been responsible for $380 billion in wasted healthcare dollars on bureaucracy and paperwork - are looking to be the beneficiaries of the $447 billion in taxpayer money for the mandate.

President Obama received a staggering $20,175,303 from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle, nearly three times the amount of his presidential rival John McCain. McCain took in $7,758,289, the Center for Responsive Politics reported. Dave Levinthal, the Center's communications director said, "When you raise $20 million from one group, obviously they've curried some favor with you and you have a lot of people in that sector who support you." suppose?

[freshwest]

3. SCOTUS + Scalia = The Obama Administration now? Back the truck up.

[JohnWxy]

6. Exquisite analysis. Elegant reasoning. I can only say, "I WISH I HAD THOUGHT OF THAT!"

.. and when the designers of the ACA are shown your OP they will be thinking that too.

As you say, if you choosse to go without medical insurance - IT'S NOT A PENALTY. It's a tax to help fund the program which pays for the medical care of those who can't pay for it themselves (i.e. they don't have medical insurance) - and which will pay for their medical care when they show up at a hospital emergency room needing attention. This establishes, in the statute, that everybody has a choice to make. Critics could not contend anybody was being 'forced' to buy health insurance. Your approach does not allow anybody to pretend they will not need medical care at some time in their lives. It reaffirms that their is no 'free lunch'.

Nobody can pretend that they can go through life without medical care as if there will be no costs involved in choosing to go without medical insurance.

Why didn't the guys who wrote the ACA think of this?!

RECOMMENDED!

[Fumesucker]

9. Is it your position that no one in the US dies due to a lack of access to health care? n/t

[JohnWxy]

10. Earth to Fumesucker - YOu might consider the possibility that you are smoking that 'stuff' too much.

[Fumesucker]

16. The handle is due to my economic situation, sucking fumes, running on empty..

The post I was responding to implied that all Americans already have adequate access to health care since they must be taxed in order to pay for that care if they do not purchase insurance.

[EFerrari]

11. It's really annoying the way ACA defenders continually collapse insurance with care.

Insurance is not health care.

[Bill USA]

14. what's more annoying is how many DUers can't stay within the scope of a thread. If you want to start

another discussion/thread your free to do so.

[EFerrari]

15. Try reading your own thread. nt

[greymattermom]

12. charity hospitals

The tax should support a charity hospital in every community. No insurance, that's where you go.

[string]

17. empty wallet

So what does the person do that barely makes enough to cover bills, not counting gas to get to work and food. By the time i pay rent, car payment and utilities (i have no credit accts), i have about $100 for the month to get gas and food. Wish i could afford health insurance, i would get it, but how the heck are they going to tax/penalize me money if i don't have it?

[Bill USA]

18. people of modest means R subsidized. If things are that tough, sounds like you could get medicaid.

The ACA does not go into full effect until 2014. IF you need health care before then you can go to the Emergency room at a near-by hospital. But be advised unless you are in pretty serious trouble your wait time to get attention could be considerable. In large cities, if you go to an emergency room without a life threatening condition you probably will get over whatever was bothering you before you are seen by a doctor or nurse.

IN 2014 the ACA goes into full effect and, based on your attested financial situation, you probably will be able to get subsidized and then can afford health care which now you can only dream of.

You are hardly alone though. Many people of consdirable means are finding they can't afford health care (insurance) either. And without the ACA going into effect many (millions) more would have been dropping their insurance as private insurance premiums would have gone beyond many people's ability to afford them. Without the ACA many millions more of us would have been showing up at emergency rooms for health care. Not really a workable solution ... and extremely expensive too. That's why the ACA was necessary.