SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare!!! Suck It Conservatives!!!

[Jack Davenport]

The problem with the SCOTUS decision is that the individual mandate was deemed a tax when the lawmakers either refused to deem it as such for purely political reasons or were clueless that it could be construed as a tax. Roberts' called it for what it is, but he could have ruled just as easily on the way it was presented before the court. The only thing that can be derived from his ruling is that he feels that the American people get the laws and representatives that they deserve and in essence remanded this back to the American people. If Obama is re-elected in November then no one is to blame for this but the majority of Americans that put him back in office.

Fool me once.........

 

[Master Roshi]

Obamacare won't help to dismantle the medical monopoly that has taken hold of this country since the findings of the Rockefeller funded Flexnor Report

 

[bobjustbob]

There are 2 things I don't like about it. Nothing to control the prices of health care and how the program is going to be funded.

Many look at big pharma as one of the roots of high costs because they make big profits. I see these companies as doing the work to provide drugs that can be used more effectively than more expensive surgery. There is a cost for them to do this. They pay scientists salaries to research and develop the drugs. Testing is long and FDA compliance is even longer. Bear in mind that not everything in the labs makes it to the shelves. For every one that makes it, how many did they spend money on that never will?

There has to be something done about tort reform. The money handed out for suits is ridiculous. We all have to pay for this every time we visit a doctor. For them to cover their asses they put you through too many tests and pay mega bucks in insurance.

At one time we had general practitioners. Anything medical went to them and only when necessary would recommend a specialist. Sometimes they would even come out to the house. Not any more. All of the doctors have become specialists and they sign up as primary care providers. They either farm you out to a specialist or send you to the ER.

As for the funding, If this is going to be a tax on those not enrolled in a plan then who are the people to pay for it. People that are not on a plan have reasons. Most likely they work for a place too small to carry one or are unemployed. What are the prices and deductibles going to be to buy one of these federally acceptable plans? I have yet to see answers for any of these questions.

Bobjustbob.

 

[Mayhem]

Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate Is A 'Penalty,' Not A 'Tax'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-romney-individual-mandate-tax_n_1642951.html

Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, admitted Monday that he actually agrees with the Obama administration on something: the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a "penalty" and not a "tax."

Since the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law but ruled that its mandate is a tax, Republicans have criticized him for imposing a massive tax on the American public.

The Romney campaign joined in this line of attack, with an adviser telling The Huffington Post's Jon Ward that the Supreme Court's ruling would help them politically.

"Frankly, to be able to tell you your taxes have been raised by this bill and you didn't know that, as opposed to trying to explain Congress's powers under the commerce clause, it's easier," the Romney adviser said, referencing the issue of the law's constitutionality.

But in a Monday interview on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Fehrnstrom contradicted this statement, agreeing with the Obama administration that the mandate is a "penalty" on individuals who do not purchase insurance -- not a tax.

"[T]he governor has consistently described the mandate as a penalty," said Fehrnstrom. "Let's take a step back and look at what the president has said about Obamacare. In order to get it past the Congress, he insisted publicly and to the members of Congress that the mandate was not a tax. After it passed the Congress, he sent his solicitor general up to court to argue that it was a tax. Now he is back to arguing that it's not a tax. So he’s all over the map."

The tax line is uncomfortable for Romney, whose signature health care reform legislation in Massachusetts also had an individual mandate and could therefore be construed as a tax -- a definition the presumptive GOP presidential nominee wants to avoid.

Fehrnstrom, in his MSNBC interview, tried to focus on accusing the Obama administration of flip-flopping on whether the mandate is a tax or a penalty. But host Chuck Todd continued to press Fehrnstrom, finally getting him to admit that he agrees with the Obama administration:

TODD: It sounds like Governor Romney though agrees that it’s not a tax. So what you just said is that Governor Romney agrees that it’s not a tax. You guys called it a tax?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent written by Justice Scalia which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

TODD: Okay. Which -- so I guess -- we're -- I think we're talking around each other. The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you're saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax.

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not -- and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That's correct.

Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter quickly tweeted after the interview, "Well, that clears it up.@EricFehrn says on @dailyrundown that Mitt agrees with the Pres. on mandate as a penalty, not a tax, for freeriders."

In a follow-up email, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg argued that the Obama is the one who needs to clarify his position.

"The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty," she wrote. "Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama's position: is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?"

 

[larss]

I don't have health insurance because I'm in that age group of about 20-30 that's young, healthy, and because of our youth, believe our selves to be invulnerable (I personally know better than that one), and makes up the bulk of the uninsured Americans, along with those who happen to be wealthy enough. I haven't been to a doctor since I was 15, but if I needed to, I'd pay out of pocket like I do the dentist, or if too expensive to pay all at once, you can arrange payment plans, and in the event of a catastrophe, there's a loan from the bank. All the things people used to do before all-covering health insurance. It's my life and my money, and I'll do with it what I want.

I WILL NOT COMPLY

I have read most of this thread so far, and this post is the most short sighted that I have read.
Yes, you are healthy and don't think that anything could possibly happen to you, and even if it does, you can pay for it!
What happens if you are shot during a robbery (for example)? You need hospitalisation for immediate care and need to remain in hospital for (let's say) 3 months. After which you are unable to work for at least another 6 months to a year and need drugs which you will have to pay for. Tot that lot up and see if you can still afford not to have insurance. What bank is going to loan you the money when you have no immediate way of paying it back?
Your argument here is akin to saying that you do not need car insurance because you will just pay for whatever damage you cause when you have an accident. Yes, I know that car insurance is there to protect 3rd parties as well, but that is only part of it.

I live in England, where there is the National Health Service. It may not be the best care in the world, but it is both universal, and a damn sight better than no care at all.
We also have the choice to "go private" and pay for private health insurance. This is not instead of the NHS but supplements it.

Just thought I'd add my :2 cents: to the thread.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I live in England, where there is the National Health Service. It may not be the best care in the world, but it is both universal, and a damn sight better than no care at all.
We also have the choice to "go private" and pay for private health insurance. This is not instead of the NHS but supplements it.

Just thought I'd add my :2 cents: to the thread.

Now why do you have to go and bring facts into this conversation?

 

[D-rock]

Obamacare won't help to dismantle the medical monopoly that has taken hold of this country since the findings of the Rockefeller funded Flexnor Report

Maybe, but if people don't like it they can blame all those out there that either didn't want, only pretended to want, or weren't will to do any meaningful reform (which is basically all Republicans but other people also), and keep any pretty much the only meaningful, ethical, sensible, solution, a single payer system run by the government like almost every other first world industrialized nation has, from the possibility of ever getting created.

Most of those people also cry and throw a nonsensical ideological fit whenever some regulation and price fixing is thought of being implemented for medical professions and medical/pharmaceutical corporations.

What we got instead is a half-measure. It's better than what we had before if kind of half-ass, but if people don't think the solution was good enough they should be complaining about others than the ones who put the new system into place, because they are the ones that made it impossible for any good solution to come about.

 

[Red Spyder]

1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really?

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

 

[Will E Worm]

:goodpost:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Red Spyder again.

An unconstitutional act. Not surprising.

 

[Straight Shooter]

1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really?

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

1. Class? you realize this is a porn message board right

2. There is an incentive for businesses to get healthcare for their employees because they will receive tax incentives. Put the special subsidies and the exemption together, and the result is a law that’s pretty clearly a good deal for small businesses.

3. Even Romney agrees that it's a penalty and not a tax. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-campaign-calls-obamacare-a-penalty-not-a-tax/

4. Critics of the Affordable Care Act also should keep in mind that the model for the mandate they condemn now was dreamed up in a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, more than 20 years ago and has been enthusiastically supported by Republican lawmakers over the years. One wonders what the critics would be saying if, instead of being passed as part of Obamacare, the mandate had been part of a successful Republican program pushed by a Republican officeholder. Somebody, for example, like Mitt Romney.

Before you make another post I suggest you learn what is in the healthcare law
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

 

[Straight Shooter]

1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really?

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

1. Class? you realize this is a porn message board right

2. There is an incentive for businesses to get healthcare for their employees because they will receive tax incentives. Put the special subsidies and the exemption together, and the result is a law that’s pretty clearly a good deal for small businesses.

3. Even Romney agrees that it's a penalty and not a tax. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-campaign-calls-obamacare-a-penalty-not-a-tax/

4. Critics of the Affordable Care Act also should keep in mind that the model for the mandate they condemn now was dreamed up in a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, more than 20 years ago and has been enthusiastically supported by Republican lawmakers over the years. One wonders what the critics would be saying if, instead of being passed as part of Obamacare, the mandate had been part of a successful Republican program pushed by a Republican officeholder. Somebody, for example, like Mitt Romney.

Before you make another post I suggest you learn what is in the healthcare law
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

In what way is it fine? There are millions who should have health care that don't. Premiums are sky rocketing. Insurance and drug companies are making ridiculous profits which inflate the cost for everyone. How is that fine? Why should there not be reform? The health care system in the U.S. is very broken, and needs some change. I don't think Obamacare is the answer, but it is, at least, a step in some direction. Leaving the health care system as it is really is not an option.

Worms apparently some form of Drug rep....

 

[Will E Worm]

1. Class? you realize this is a porn message board right

:nono: Then leave.

 

[D-rock]

1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really?

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

Uhh...do you consider paying for police in your community to take away your "freedom", how about those fire department people, or the people who created the highways near you, or how about paying for those schools all those kids go to around you, what about that military that keeps people from invading us and taking us over? Guess what, you don't have a choice in paying for them either, and they have been around for a long time now, longer than you have been alive. Some of them have had to be paid for by the taxpayers since this countries beginning. It's a pretty good thing people can't and couldn't just choose to opt out of those things. The idea that there are certain social responsibilities that one must do that cost personal resources being against inherent "freedom" is laughable. Taking care of your fellow countrymen is a part of that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" idea. Like the listed things above it's intertwined with it. The idea of individual liberty isn't a blank check to get out of doing anything one doesn't like when it doesn't personally maximize benefit to themselves. You seem to treat it as such. You also sound like your grasping at straws, and even if it's a tax, SO FREAKING WHAT?

Sorry, but letting people get out of every thing that might inconvenience them because they don't like it isn't some inherent right of the Constitution, or nature, or God for that matter. If it was we wouldn't have any of the above. Society itself would crumble. People in relative power shouldn't be able to pick and choose what obligations they have to give to the society that fosters them. Whether you like it or not you, me, and pretty much everybody else is a part of the health care system. Even if you nave never had a single medical issue in your entire life no matter how small, which is unlikely, I'm sure you weren't born out in the woods somewhere. It would be astoundingly rare for a person that never uses it, so nobody can claim they not a part of it.

(I also don't know where this poor will get Medicaid stuff is from either. I once checked into it and because I was neither disabled nor had children I didn't qualify. It's also not like that keeps them from being legally obligated to pay for the treatment they get either.)

As for any Republican health plan I have ever heard I have ever seen anything that wasn't pathetically inadequate to the problems at hand. I would say it's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound but that might be generous. They just don't want to do anything that actually solves the problem. It's basically play baby stuff that's amounts to code speak for, "We don't really want to solve this or do anything. Our ideology doesn't let us handle corporations no matter how sane and smart it might be to do so. It doesn’t help we are in bed with most of them anyway. We don't really give a crap about you if you suffer from the flaws of the system. We got ours so screw you, but hey here are some lame half-hearted things we came up with so we don't technically have to tell you to screw off, and because we know there is a significant portion of the population that for one reason or another are dumb enough to believe us." Keep in mind that while they do that and while the system doesn't get fixed millions of people in this country suffer.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Worms apparently some form of Drug rep....

He also refuses to answer questions he finds too hard.

 

[Rey C.]

I have read most of this thread so far, and this post is the most short sighted that I have read.
Yes, you are healthy and don't think that anything could possibly happen to you, and even if it does, you can pay for it!
What happens if you are shot during a robbery (for example)? You need hospitalisation for immediate care and need to remain in hospital for (let's say) 3 months. After which you are unable to work for at least another 6 months to a year and need drugs which you will have to pay for. Tot that lot up and see if you can still afford not to have insurance. What bank is going to loan you the money when you have no immediate way of paying it back?
Your argument here is akin to saying that you do not need car insurance because you will just pay for whatever damage you cause when you have an accident. Yes, I know that car insurance is there to protect 3rd parties as well, but that is only part of it.

I live in England, where there is the National Health Service. It may not be the best care in the world, but it is both universal, and a damn sight better than no care at all.
We also have the choice to "go private" and pay for private health insurance. This is not instead of the NHS but supplements it.

Just thought I'd add my :2 cents: to the thread.

Even in less severe cases, a trip to the ER and one day of hospitalization in the U.S. can easily cost $5K. Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals with emergency rooms on campus to accept and treat anyone and everyone, regardless or national origin, legal status or ability to pay. There is no requirement that people have to be admitted, but there is a requirement that they must be stabilized before being discharged. There is absolutely no legal requirement that doctors in private practice have to treat anyone who does not have insurance, or who has insurance that offers unacceptable payment terms (like Medicaid or certain discount/junk insurance policies). So what people without insurance do in the U.S. is use the emergency room as a place to get primary/urgent care. They're treated, released and then... they do not pay.

This business where someone claims they will get a bank loan or work out a payment plan is just fantasy. That typically does not happen. They'll establish long term payment plans, but they're seldom fully satisfied. And that is why so many hospitals have been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy in the U.S. - like my local hospital. Anyone who has even a basic understanding of the financial system would know that banks are not lending to even those with good collateral now. To buy a house with even good income and a stellar credit rating is very difficult now. If a person had anything meaningful in the way of assets and/or income, they'd likely have insurance already (as few people with assets would put those assets at risk by not having medical and property insurance). And banks don't loan money to broke, sick people just because they need the money. In reality, what happens is, the hospitals and doctors who work in ER's in the U.S. get stiffed by the people without insurance, but who make claims that "the check will be in the mail" or they'll get the money from Uncle Lewis and he'll pay the bill. They don't pay. People like me, with insurance and assets, pay for them through higher bills to cover the credit losses.

My opinion stands: these "freedom loving patriots", who willingly go uninsured, but who run to the ER as soon as they get sick, are freeloaders. And typically these people do not have enough in the way of assets or income to satisfy their unpaid medical bills. One of the most common causes of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. is unpaid medical bills. That is a fact. And when people enter bankruptcy, all of their creditors (other than certain government debts, like taxes, etc.) take a hit. So when individuals go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills they tend to help take hospitals with ER's into bankruptcy as well.

Other than forcing people to get health insurance, the only practical (though somewhat Draconian) solution that I have is to repeal Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That would prevent these willingly uninsured freeloaders from using ER's as free health care facilities and placing a burden on the rest of us.

 

[Straight Shooter]

:nono: Then leave.

You're talking to the wrong person. He's the one expecting people to have class on a porn board

 

[Mayhem]

Mitt Romney: Individual Mandate 'Is A Tax'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/04/mitt-romney-individual-mandate_n_1649233.html

Contradicting his own top campaign adviser, Mitt Romney on Wednesday declared that the individual mandate contained in President Barack Obama's health care law is, indeed, a tax and not a penalty against those who refuse to buy coverage

"I said that I agree with the [Supreme Court']s dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt [the individual mandate] was unconstitutional," Romney said in a released clip of a CBS News interview. "But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And now the Supreme Court has spoken. And while I agree with the dissent, that's taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it's a tax, and therefore, it is a tax."

Romney continued: "They have spoken. And there's no way around that. You can try and say you wish they decided a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is."

Romney also sat down with CNN for an interview, during which he repeated the new campaign line. The Supreme Court, he said, ruled that the mandate is a tax, "so it's a tax, of course, if that's what they say it is."

The remarks are a complete 180 from those made by two top advisers to the Romney campaign in recent days. Spokesperson Andrea Saul, two days ago, said that the governor "thinks [the mandate] is an unconstitutional penalty," not a tax. Top aide Eric Ferhnstrom, that same day, emphatically declared that the campaign did not believe the mandate was a tax.

"The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax," Ferhnstrom said in a Monday interview with MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown."

The comments from Romney, delivered during his July 4 break in New Hampshire, also clearly gave way to the counter-argument that, by his own definitio, he raised taxes during his time as Massachusetts governor. The individual mandate, after all, is the concept that Romney helped spearhead as part of the health care overhaul in the Bay State. The penalty that citizens in his home state were subjected to should they opt not to buy insurance is greater than those levied under Obamacare.



The early clip of the CBS interview, however, doesn’t make clear if Romney was asked to address the mandate he signed into law and whether he now could be declared a tax-raiser. A request to the Romney campaign for the full transcript was not immediately returned. It is unclear when the network will air the interview.

The Romney campaign's abrupt reversal comes as conservatives pressured the candidate to use the Supreme Court's ruling -- which held that the mandate was constitutional under Congress' taxing power - as a cudgel to attack the president. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus went so far as to openly break with the campaign's position, declaring that the individual mandate is a tax.

UPDATE: 3:28 p.m. -- The Romney campaign has released a fuller transcript of the CBS interview, in which the candidate is asked the question: If the mandate is a tax under Obamacare, isn't it also a tax under Masscare?

"Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates," Romney replied. "They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was."

The Romney campaign also sent over a portion of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in which he notes that because the Constitution "is not the source of" state power, states can act in ways that would be outlawed for the federal government. As Romney argues to CBS, "states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth ... which is what Massachusetts did."

This is a debate over semantics. In the end, the mandate used by Obama was virtually the same as the one used by Romney. Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who worked on both health care laws, told the Huffington Post as much recently. Although it is justified legally under different definitions, it is the same legislative instrument.

I can't believe you Conservatives actually think this double-speaking bowl of jello would be a good President.

 

[Will E Worm]

You're talking to the wrong person. He's the one expecting people to have class on a porn board

You admit you are low-brow and don't have any class?

It's a misconception to say this is just a porn board.
Also, it says you look down on the females that are in porn. Not very nice.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

He also refuses to answer questions he finds too hard.

When pressed beyond their intellectual capabilities those of low IQ panic.