The Bucknuts Hot Spot

I really don't get how people are so incapable of seeing this distinction.

With car insurance, you only have to buy if you want to drive. (you have a choice)

With the health insurance mandate, you have to purchase simply for being alive and an American. (you have no choice)

Its that simple.

If you want to drive, you purchase auto insurance. If you want to use the Healthcare system, you should purchase health insurance. If I were designing the bill I would have given people an opt out clause that prevents them from getting access to any health care. If it's illegal to drive without insurance it should likewise be illegal to visit a doctor without insurance. Now, that idea is crazy and would never work but that is why the solution that was passed was created.

Actually, it would. That is what we call precedent.

Remember that the Constitution limits the power of the fed govt but leaves the powers of states and citizens as open ended. To paraphrase, all powers not granted in the Constitution to the fed govt are powers granted to the states and citizens.

Therefore overturning Obamacare will have no effect on state laws, such as Romneycare or auto insurance. However, the power of the fed govt will be more defined under the Commerce clause, and thats a good thing. If you lean to the left and the mandate is upheld, imagine the fed govt requiring everyone to buy a gun using the argument that every citizen will feel the need for self defense at some point in their lives.

I'm not sure where you got that 1 in 6 stat. That sounds pulled out of your butt. But I don't care. It's not related to the point. We'll pretend its true.

I do agree that those who drive without insurance are irresponsible. I also believe that they should be punished to an even greater extent than we do. But this is an interesting example. Because it still doesn't adequately correlate to your analogy. For example, an uninsured motorist who gets into an accident with you still inflicts damage upon you individually. However, an uninsured health care recipient does not impose any health care needs upon you.

You are correct that premiums and fees go up as a result of uninsured health care recipients. But you are not correct in people not answering you. I believe I answered this in another thread.

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with people being denied health care due to their inability to pay. No problem at all. Now, that doesn't necessarily require health insurance. But funds must be present. Say for example an individual requests health care but does not have insurance. Then fees would absolutely have to be leveraged up front to that individual. They would have to pay an upfront consultation fee. Then, once issues have been diagnosed, the health provider would draft an estimate of the costs and demand an upfront payment, whether that be a fraction of the total or the complete total all at once is up to their discretion. If your check bounces, sucks to be you.

The issue isn't whether Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians or Capitalists have any problem with denying people health care. The issue is that you liberals believe that because you are alive, you are entitled to it.

To me, health care is a service. An expensive one. It requires specialized training and carries a great deal of liability. Thus justifying the costs. This service also has a great deal of Economic demand with very limited supply. Which is another factor inflating the costs. In the end, its still a service. Its just one that people want so badly that they demand it be given to everyone. I don't see it that way.

So if a Conservative comes to see a doctor and cannot pay, whether that be because they don't have the capital or they don't have insurance, then no, not a single person should be required to treat them.

Funny how you use the word "required"! How very Marxist. Of course in your frame of understanding, to reach your dream of utopia, you fully comprehend that "requiring" is a necessity. Whereas, I have no problem with proprietors refusing business to someone on the grounds of not being able to pay.

Perhaps if such restrictions didn't exist, and people could be refused, they might take their personal health much more seriously. Maybe as a result Americans would be healthier overall. Maybe that would reduce demand for healthcare. Maybe that would lower premiums. Maybe that would lower fees.

Kind of like the stupid idiotic question from Scalia about being forced to buy broccoli? He wanted to know what was next? He's an ass. The answer should be no, I don't have to eat.

You are not mandated to buy auto insurance. It is NOT the same thing. I do not drive. Guess what, I DON'T HAVE TO BUY AUTO INSURANCE! Also, driving is a PRIVILEDGE. The government takes that priviledge away if you have an OVI or too many speeding tickets.

Damn. Good. Post.

Interesting even more, because my argument is the VERY reason why the Supreme Court is even deliberating the issue in the first place. They are determining the constitutionality of mandating Americans to purchase something and of forcing Americans into a specific market as a result.

So those lawyers you mention are feeding you a load of crap so they can be on TV. There are lawyers on the other side saying that everything I'm arguing is 100% correct. I can find lawyers that will get on TV and tell you pigs can fly. It doesn't mean crap.

Otherwise, there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to even review. In fact, why do you think the Supreme Court is reviewing this issue then?

Just because MSNBC puts lawyers on TV stating their opinions on an evnetual ruling doesn't mean its gospel. It just means TV is doing its job well. And that flooding the masses with their agenda in shaping the news as they see fit.

So then you agree that there is the question of constitutionality to the ruling. If there wasn't, there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to review. Because there is that question of constituionality, we are where we are.

Now, back to my argument, whats being deliberated is the constitutionality of a mandate to force Americans into a market. Not any specific market (such as health insurance) but any market.

Which is the foundation of my argument.

Of course the argument can go both ways. Otherwise, once again, the Supreme Court wouldn't be deliberating the issue. They would have already ruled.

But you're arguing as if we've declared the SC has already ruled. Thats a cop-out. Nobody has said anything of the sort.. If you can't debate the points anymore fine. But this post quoted here is the equivalent of "I'm rubber you're glue".

"This is basic stuff, man" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that how you are able to get a leg up on the kids you debate with? Stating something obvious that isn't even being argued and then act as if the other guy doesn't get it? Come on... Something tells me you're going to revert back to some delusional hole and fabricate another argument with yourself and declare me wrong over something I've never said real soon.

Wrong. It's on Supreme Court's head. Just wait until all those people that had these benefits have them now taken away. Guess whomtheybwill be voting for? Also, Congress will be going Dem. thank you SCOTUS.

Actually, it would be on Obama's head. First, he has been violating a Federal Court order. Second, if he and the Democrats had passed a Bill that would pass Constitutional scrutiny then we wouldn't be in this situation. When the SC strikes down this Law, people will be mad at the Democrats in Congress and Obama for failing to deliver on a promise. The GOP will use the opportunity to tout a much better Healthcare plan. A lot of GOP members want to "Repeal and Replace" Obamacare.