Here's one defense to the constitutionality of the Health Insurance Mandate

[boston bean]

Person # 1 "I am not required to own a car."

Response........

Person # 2 "Are you required to go to the hospital?"

You could have knocked me over with a feather..... if I hadn't been busy puking my guts out in disgust.

[MineralMan]

1. I see your point, there...

On the other hand, there's some truth to that second question.

People without health insurance often not only do not go to the hospital, but don't seek any healthcare services at all when they're ill. They're forced to make that choice due to the high cost of healthcare. Even many people with health insurance choose not to seek care most of the time, due to the cost of copays and non-covered services.

On the other hand, when a health issue reaches a certain level of severity, or in the case of some sort of accident, the choice may not be there. You go to the hospital in the ambulance that was called or when family or others transport you there to save your life. In those cases, you may not be in any position to decide whether or not to go to the hospital. In reality, you are required to go to the hospital. If you can't pay, you'll get the amount of care required to keep you alive and send you home, followed by an almost endless series of harassing communications demanding that you pay for those minimal services.

The answer should be taxpayer-supported universal single payer healthcare. That's the only real solution to the problem. It also seems to be an unattainable solution in the current political environment. Instead we have this mandated coverage, with subsidies and exceptions for people who cannot pay for insurance. It's a weak substitute, but offers at least some assurance of treatment for life-threatening conditions. Is it constitutional? Well, I think so, but that call is not mine.

The bottom line here is that the current crappy HCR legislation isn't adequate or even appropriate. The only good thing about it is that it can be replaced with an actual single-payer system if we ever get a Congress that will do that. For me, the question isn't really whether mandated insurance is constitutional or not. The question is how we can elect a Congress that will do what's actually needed.

Single-Payer Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare for All! That's the goal. That's what I'm working on. The only way I know to get it is through electing an unassailable majority in both houses of Congress that will enact it. If someone has another feasible path to this, I'd love to hear it. The path I've described is very difficult.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. The idea that if the best can not be had, the only choice is a shit

sandwich indicates a lack of imagination, and a lack of will to do the right thing. For example, a leader who has to make a deal they see as inadequate or inappropriate can say exactly that, rather than celebrating the 'perfection' of the shit sandwich for having two slices and a steaming filling.
And I do not think it is Constitutional to mandate the purchase of private for profit products. Not one of our peer democracies consider that to even be legal, in all other 'mandate' countries, it is a crime to profit from the mandated products. I agree with them.

[MineralMan]

8. OK. I don't disagree with your point.

The current HCR is an interim deal, as I see it. It has benefits for some. It's not the solution, as I made clear in my post. It is a stopgap at best. What should be in place could not be. Life is reality. The difference between something and nothing is something in the real world.

I want single-payer taxpayer-funded health care. We weren't going to get that. I prefer something today, rather than nothing.

[Shagbark Hickory]

3. And people won't go once they have insurance either. Because the affordable plans won't cover shit.

And people will still be afraid to go due to the cost.

[Romulox]

4. Perhaps that's the fatal flaw in demanding universal health INSURANCE

rather than universal health COVERAGE (i.e. Single Payer).

Just because someone "has insurance" doesn't mean any particular service is covered.

[Shagbark Hickory]

6. Yeah there will be an insurance plan to "Keep You Legal For Less"

But it will be useless.

[Shagbark Hickory]

5. If you want to compare to car insurance, then lets examine how horrible the car insurance system is.

The cheapest car insurance you get has super high deductibles from sleazebucket companies that you have to threaten to sue before they will pay even the smallest claim.
It's more for other drivers than the policy holder themselves. If they file a claim, their premiums go up. Most repairs won't be above the deductible anyway.
Is this what you want for the health insurance system? A pool that sucks the money from the lower incomes- the people that will end up receiving the least benefits from their plans that don't cover hospital or doctors visits?

[Desertrose]

7. Yeah, I felt the icy cold heartlessness of that reply.

"I got my (healthcare, retirement,whatever)..you can go f@ck yourself."

God forbid someone just helps another human being walking this planet without some gain to themselves for it. It's that mentality that keeps us fighting against each other rather than trying to work together for a beneficial solution.



Pay it forward.