Health care law ruled constitutional

[mopkins]

I keep seeing people make this comparison, and it just doesn't fit.

Auto insurance is not a mandatory condition for US citizenship, or even for obtaining a driver's license. If you opt not to drive, you have no need for auto insurance. The insurance is only mandatory for those who wish to enjoy the privileges that driving convey. Auto insurance isn't mandatory for US residents any more than a driver's license is. By way of contrast, "Obamacare" would force the purchasing of health insurance as a condition of, what? Living in the US? US citizenship?

Furthermore, auto and health insurance exist for different reasons. Auto insurance (at least the type required) exists to protect others from your actions. Health insurance on the other hand exists not to protect others, but to protect you.

So you're saying that Americans should get the right to choose whether or not they want or don't want health care? So you're saying those that choose not to should just be left on the street to die should they get injured and can't afford their bills? Do you realize that currently that doesn't happen and tax-payers are FORCED to pay for medical bills that other's can't afford?

If you're against universal health care that's fine, but that means you're also in the same boat that says if you don't get health care and you get in a car accident and get impaled by a metal rod, the hospitals have every right to turn you away if you can't afford the treatment.

Sorry but thats not a society I want to live in, and at least universal health care is a step in the right direction.

[Dashield28]

Once again, Americans think they are the absolute authority on this situation. No wonder most of the wealthy republican party members want to stop this from going on. They dont care about the poor or large middle income families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Most of the world has some form od socialized/universal healthcare system. If the US doesnt have one, they are BEHIND the times. Over the last few decades the US has actually fallen in their "reign as a super power"

Education, Healthcare, Economy are all in the gutter. Yet Americans keep listening to those clowns on Fox News spew their bile lies instead of trying to get an unbiased view and educate themselves.

Very sad... very very sad.

[Deleted]

The american healthcare $y$tem is terrible (unless you are rich and/or have a good employer and don't get fired or want to resign, then it's one of the best) and there are no easy solutions for them, but forcing people to buy health insurance is possibly the worst improvement they could have come up with. Ah well.

[Gulvar]

That's completely side-stepping the issue. People don't like the idea of government forcing them to buy a product. I already need to pay taxes that pay for other people's health-care. That is essentially the government taking my money by force, for the sole purpose of distributing it to others that are judged to need it more than I do.

The initiative currently being debated goes a step further, and would require individuals to purchase a product.

I don't think it is. I believe that the idea of an inner-city guy who may not work getting a higher level of health care fills enough people with such hatred that middle class families suffer.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. If you don't have health care then I will most liekely being paying for something at some point because of it. Much like I pay for people who treat their bodies like garbage. The poor get health care. Financially fortunate people have great health care. The middle class is left to make things work. I have awesome coverage at a high price and I want people to have better options more than many of those with little, if any coverage, who scream at that damn Obamer.

I am not saying this bill was perfect. I am saying that we have to get past this nonsense and get people affordable health care that doesn't suck.

[Wells]

O, for anyone complaining about healthcare insurance: keep in mind that a doctor isn't born with the notion that they should save your dumbars, or fix your borken bones, or anything. It costs money to get seen by a doctor. And "health insurance" is simply a financial tool used to reduce the financial risk to the patient.

Why should Bill Gates be required to buy insurance anymore than a healthy 25 year old? Insurance is an OPTION.

Liberals will be saying life insurance should be free soon too.

People like Gates make up such a tiny portion of the total population that they're irrelevant as a counter argument.

[TobyKenobi]

my uncle (retired, no health issues) pays $1200 a month for him and his wife, and they rarely even go to the doctors, thats 12,000 a year, thats more than some people make in a year,.

Believe it or not that's not much higher than health care costs for people that ARE employed, and definitely on par with what I expect to pay after I retire.

[Pert]

I don't think it is. I believe that the idea of an inner-city guy who may not work getting a higher level of health care fills enough people with such hatred that middle class families suffer.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. If you don't have health care then I will most liekely being paying for something at some point because of it. Much like I pay for people who treat their bodies like garbage. The poor get health care. Financially fortunate people have great health care. The middle class is left to make things work. I have awesome coverage at a high price and I want people to have better options more than many of those with little, if any coverage, who scream at that damn Obamer.

I am not saying this bill was perfect. I am saying that we have to get past this nonsense and get people affordable health care that doesn't suck.

The fact that you'll likely be forced to pay for my poor decisions is a failure of socialism, not of liberty. Additional government control over our every-day lives is not the answer.

[Wells]

The fact that you'll likely be forced to pay for my poor decisions is a failure of socialism, not of liberty. Additional government control over our every-day lives is not the answer.

We as a society won't let people die from injury. If they can't pay that cost is going to get passed onto other people via market mechanics, as the hospital absorbs the loss.

Socialism doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

[Pert]

We as a society won't let people die from injury. If they can't pay that cost is going to get passed onto other people via market mechanics, as the hospital absorbs the loss.

Socialism doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.

When you get the government involved to the degree that they are/wish to be, of course it does.

[Wells]

When you get the government involved to the degree that they are/wish to be, of course it does.

I'm not sure you even know what socialism is.

Nor have you addressed the point.

[Willeonge]

Wait till Supreme Court.

[Venziir]

Wait till Supreme Court.

Hm, all of a sudden the "Boston Legal" theme popped into my hea-DENNY CRANE!

[Wells]

I'd be surprised if it gets shot down in the SC to be honest.

[Pert]

I'm not sure you even know what socialism is.

Nor have you addressed the point.

In the present context it would be the government's attempts to provide the entire population with 'quality' medical care through the heavy application of subsidies and regulation.

Also, what point? As far as I'm aware the proposed measures would cover far more than lethal injuries, so it's an odd distinction for you to make.

[TobyKenobi]

Wait till Supreme Court.

Every wonder if the Justices don't take these cases seriously because they know it's going to go to the supreme court? Maybe they hide Easter Eggs in their decisions.

[Wells]

In the present context it would be the government's attempts to provide the entire population with 'quality' medical care through the heavy application of subsidies and regulation.

That's irrelevant to the point regarding the uninsured passing on costs though.

[Spotnick]

Of course nobody will be for the fact of having a universal health care system until they actually know somebody who struggled with their insurance company or seeing people getting bankrupt by medical bills.

And of course people who lived all their life in a country where medical acts are free won't understand why people can be against that.

Both sides have their problems.. Americans have many people unable to get the health care they need because it's too expensive, or have issues getting covered by their insurance.

In Canada, we have long waiting list for emergencies most likely caused by people who use the system for stupid things like a cold.

Pretty sure people have to agree to disagree on that subject. I have yet to understand why Americans thing socialism (even if this is pretty far from real socialism) is a bad thing.. you judge the value of society by the amount of poor they create, and not the amount of rich people... the less poor you have, the more rich your society is.

[Wells]

Of course nobody will be for the fact of having a universal health care system until they actually know somebody who struggled with their insurance company or seeing people getting bankrupt by medical bills.

And of course people who lived all their life in a country where medical acts are free won't understand why people can be against that.

Both sides have their problems.. Americans have many people unable to get the health care they need because it's too expensive, or have issues getting covered by their insurance.

In Canada, we have long waiting list for emergencies most likely caused by people who use the system for stupid things like a cold.

Pretty sure people have to agree to disagree on that subject. I have yet to understand why Americans thing socialism (even if this is pretty far from real socialism) is a bad thing.. you judge the value of society by the amount of poor they create, and not the amount of rich people... the less poor you have, the more rich your society is.

America is a nation of temporarily displaced millionaires.

[Pert]

That's irrelevant to the point regarding the uninsured passing on costs though.

The uninsured can't pass the costs on, because they cannot force others to provide them with free treatment. You may be right that hospitals will not turn away an individual with life-threatening injuries, but in that case it is the hospital passing on the costs. In any event, this initiative is not restricted to life-threatening injuries, so I find your "point" to be disingenuous.

[Wells]

The uninsured can't pass the costs on, because they cannot force others to provide them with free treatment.

Yes they can. Because we don't live in a society that turns people away in the ER, thank god.

But that's not socialism.

You may be right that hospitals will not turn away an individual with life-threatening injuries, but in that case it is the hospital passing on the costs.

That's exactly what it is. Hospitals treat those in need regardless of ability pay to a point. That expense gets passed on to the insured. This is a fundamental issue in our current system.