| Kasz216 said:
B&C) I never said it was a "communal sock" I said that most people put in more money then they get out of their health insurance. It's pretty much the only way health insurance works. Which completely defeats the "Inevitability" arguement. Since most people are, like you said, paying money to defary risk, which ends up going to treat other people. In otherwords, most people are consuming way more then they would normally, while a few are consuming less... because MOST people will put in way more in healthcare insurance premiums, then they would in in healthcare payments for services. While only a few who suffer serious injuries... and probably more then one serious injury will consume more in healtcare services then they paid in premiums. This completely defeats your inevitability arguement. It's like argueing that because everybody is going to need Gasoline at some point or another, we should all pool in $100 a month even though most of us will use far less, and a few far more, because it's inevitable that we'll use gasoline. (Though the amount we'll use is probably going to be way less.)
D) Additionally, you still aren't getting it. Say I'm "John Middle Class" and I have plenty of money for health insurance but I don't buy it under the new law. I now get cancer. I go to the hospital, I don't have health insurance. They have to treat me. One of two situations occurs here. 1) I don't have enough money to pay my hospital bills! Therefore I go bankrupt, the state has to pay for it and.... I can't pay my fine either and go bankrupt. How was this fine supposed to deter me again? I go bankrupt either way. 2) I do have enough money to pay my hospital bills! So I do. Then I have to pay the fine... which was to prevent the above situation. Which it wouldn't... because, why woud it? So i'm paying extra money for... having enough money to pay my hospital bills... what?
E) It's not a slippery slope arguement, it's a direct lateral arguement. |
A) Glad we agree.
B+C) Except that it doesn't defeat my inevitability argument at all. Everyone who's in this country for enough time to fall under this law* is going to utilize health care. Everyone. That was in point A. What you're arguing now when you say "MOST people will put in way more in healthcare insurance premiums, then they would in in healthcare payments for services" boils down to "this is a rotten deal for the average joe, because he's paying in more than he'll get out!"
Ignoring for a moment the policy aspect of that debate, and focusing purely on the legal side, your argument has already conceded the issue. After all, no one disputes that Congress has the power to regulate commercial activity, a legal theory that has been upheld when it comes down to Congress' power to regulate whatever medical care you do receive.
For simplicity's sake, let me break it down. Health care is an economic activity. Everyone is going to utilize health care, as conceded earlier. Congress has the power to regulate economic activity. This essentially ends the issue. Whether Congress' regulations are wise, or fair, or the best solution; all are completely irrelevant. As long as those regulations do not run afoul of a Constitutional prohibition, and the regulation pass the required level of scrutiny (here, rational basis), then the law should be upheld by the courts. Its wisdom should be challenged in the legislature, not the courthouse.
To stick with your (highly imperfect) gas analogy, it wouldn't matter whether you use $10 a month or only 0.01 cent a month of gas, because you agreed earlier that the group has power to decide what to do about the necessary that is gas money.
*I suppose foreign workers who are here for only a few months wouldn't, but you get the idea.
D) The law is designed specifically to ensure that John Middle Class never gets into this mess in the first place. Outcome one is akin to saying "laws designed to deter undesirable activities never work 100%. They are therefore pointless." I reject that sentiment out of hand.
Outcome two is also largely irrelevant. If you're John Middle Class, and you just beat cancer with your own money, you sure as hell don't have the cash left over that it would take to get over your wife's cancer, or that whiplash you suffered last night, or your kid's apendicitis, or whatever else little joys life sends your way. Otherwise, you're not exactly Middle Class. When it comes to life, lightning has no problem striking twice. Besides, few people would be dense enough to dodge a bullet and not keep their head down afterwards. As for those few, I'm sure they'll be happy to know that their fine money went at least a little way towards alleviating the cost of their stupidity to society.
The entire rant I went on earlier about why health insurance works like it does was pretty much on point for this section. You're saying that the penalty is "not for people to pay for their own inevitable costs." Since you've gone into more detail about how specific a reading you're giving the "own" in "own inevitable costs," I suppose it's true for most, in the narrow sense. But that's largely irrelevant, for reasons already stated.
| Kasz216 said:
Like forcing someone to buy more food then they need to eat. Additionally, if your argueing that health insurance prices aren't relatable to healthcare prices because of how health insurance works. That even more defeats your point of inevitability, because you aren't even paying for the same product. |
Except that that's not how the commerce clause works. You're arguing policy: people shouldn't be forced to consume more than they absolutely have to! I'm mostly pointing out that once you start consuming health care, which you have and you will, you've fallen under the commerce clause. Congress, not the courthouse, should be where the battle over policy takes place. As an aside, I concede that some of my post was also about the wisdom of the concept of health insurance, and that the "eat what you kill" system you're implicitly advocating defeats the entire purpose of getting insurance in the first place. That aside is tangential to the topic at hand, though.
You later write about car insurance. That's actually a useful illustration for this point: the legislature can require you to purchase a minimum amount of certain kinds of insurance, notwithstanding that, God willing, you'll never use most/any of it. Speaking of...
| Kasz216 said: Also, actually thinking about it. Inevitability and healthcare as a right would make it MORE unconstitutional.
I mean the law can't force someone to NOT incriminate themselves. In otherwords forcing people to remain silent. |
Regarding auto insurance, no one has ever successfully claimed that a driver's license, or the ability to drive, is a necessity for life. But, once again, the state has successfully mandated that drivers must purchase at least X amount of insurance if they are going to drive, notwithstanding that most consumers will never consume the entire amount that they paid out over their lifetime. This is perfectly legal, because this activity falls under the commerce clause, does not run afoul of any constitutional prohibition, and passes a rational basis level of scrutiny.
As for your final note, I admit I don't quite understand the connection, but to address it directly: the law probably could do just that if it wanted, through the simple process of making any statement you make inadmissible against you in a court of law or equity. And with that, the law forces you to not incriminate yourself. I don't see any constitutional bar there. I also don't see it happening. *shrug*
