What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

[Kasz216]

Mr Khan said:

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

 

 

 

What if tommorrow it gets ruled unconstituional, someone is taken off their parents life insurance.  they have a heart attack in their room, and die.  Not to be discovered until hours later.

There would be no medical bills. 

What if you specifically decide to not go to a hosptial your whole life, like a Christian Scientist.

What if before "end of life care" you die in your sleep.

Or you move to a different country.

Or the Police find you murdered.

Or you go to jail.  (State pays for that afterall.)

Or you fly to a different country for your healthcare.  (Though everybody seems to come here for that.)

Or since your qualfier is "can't afford out of pocket" what if your bill gates.  Should he be exempt from this law?  Should only the poor be forced to get health insurance?

 

Your grasping at straws here.  Just admit that you want it to be ruled consitutional and would rather something be ruled constituional then isn't, that see something happen that you think would be a big negative for the country.  I mean, that's a position I can respect.

Right now your just running on cognitive dissonance.

My qualifier is that health care is an inevitability in the aggregate. You're citing stuff that doesn't apply for the vast majority of people to state why it isn't an inevitability, and if judges are ruling like that, then they're the ones clutching at straws, because that then violates the spirit of things by going after technicalities.

Yes i want it ruled constitutional, but I also believe that there's really no sound argument against it.

Inevitability means... not avoiadable.

The fact that it is avoidable for some people,(or really anyone who chooses to not have healthcare or go elsewhere) means it's not an inevitability, and therefore not inevitable.

Your arguement is that at some point, everbody will use healthcare.  When in fact, some people will never use healthcare.

Though, lets have a thought expierment for a moment and say that probability = inevitability.

Regardless... this is your sole claim that your clinging too, since the rest have been disproven and you've neglected to argue the points past that.

Which means, that if ruled constituional, it means ANY "inevitable" purchase can be regulated by congress to force purchases.

Which again, brings us back to the Supreme Court question.

Food is more of an inevitable purchase then healthcare.   Therefore the government can enforce what we eat.

Or hell, you can enforce what we eat under the healthcare mandate afterall.  Peoples health problems would be less problematic if they ate healthy afterall.  So why not force eveyrone to eat very strict specific diets or pay fines.

It will lower their "inevitable" costs down the line.

This is not a slippery slope arguement, because there is no slope.  It's the exact same situation since we've already ruled out "no other way to regulate it" since there is.

You can argue the government wouldn't do that, but it doesn't change the fact that they would now have the power to... do you see that as consitutional?

This is now simply a situation where we take the exact same kind of thing but replace it with something you aren't emotionally invested in since we've already factually proven the other things aren't relevent.