Govt. to REQUIRE adults to carry Health care insurance

trrenter_IHB

trrenter_IHB

New member
Is this constitutional?



Certain Religion's are against medical intervention. How do you get past the separation of church and state?



<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31782553/ns/politics-capitol_hill/">Link to article</a>
 
You can force them to have insurance, but you cannot force them to use it. There are religions that say you don't have to pay taxes too, but they are still compelled to comply or they end up in jail.
 
It says in "God we Trust" on our Currency.

The Pledge of Allegiance mentions "One Nation Under God"

When the all Oath's are given. "So help me God"



Mst be a dozen more examples.

So what about all the Atheist's out there. You cant have it both ways my firend.

Seperation of Church and State not going to fly with your argument here.



Try looking at it from the perspective we all must have Auto Insurance.

Whats the difference ? You insure your car or you dont drive.

Now you need to insure "You" or your not going to be in the pool and be covered.

Seems logical to me. It sure has worked to keep premiums down.

And if its not for some INSANE profit for some nonsense insurance company.

It just might work.
 
IR interesting point. I think the difference could be that technically you get something for paying your taxes. IE government services, the roads etc. Whereas with the insurance you are definately paying for something you won't use. That should make it interesting.



BLT.

<blockquote>Seperation of Church and State not going to fly with your argument here.</blockquote>


It wasn't an argument it was a question. So you are saying you believe it is constitutional.



<blockquote>Try looking at it from the perspective we all must have Auto Insurance.

Whats the difference ? You insure your car or you dont drive</blockquote>


I believe auto insurance is a state issue not a federal issue. It is not illegal in New Hampsire to drive without insurance.



<blockquote>Now you need to insure ?You? or your not going to be in the pool and be covered</blockquote>


That is not how it works. You <strong>must</strong> be in the pool, period end of story.
 
You can't compel somebody to have a SSN, nor can you compel them to take SSI when they are eligible.



You are still required to pay (and withhold) SSI withholding.



They can penalize me all day long. Nobody will extend my wife insurance. It?s not like a car where if you don?t have insurance you can?t drive, if you can?t bind insurance you can?t live? Come on.



This argument is the most intellectually dishonest the GOP has had since the run up to the Iraq war.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247103182]That is not how it works. You <strong>must</strong> be in the pool, period end of story.</blockquote>


Why do you say that like it's a bad thing?



There are lots of people who want in the pool, yet are excluded by the for profit insurance companies. And of those that are in the pool, many are forced into bankrupcy anyway when they need to use it.



<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/05/earlyshow/health/main5064981.shtml</a>



<blockquote>You may think personal bankruptcies are the result of job loss or wild credit card spending.



But a new study published in The American Journal of Medicine says the biggest reason for going into bankruptcy is medical debt.



Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports the study says getting sick is a factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies -- an increase from just eight percent in 1981.



And among those who filed for bankruptcy, 75 percent reported having some type of medical insurance. But The Washington Post says people in bankruptcy with insurance were nearly $18,000 in the red. And those without insurance had an average of almost $27,000 in medical debt.

</blockquote>


You can say a lot of bad things about the Canadian system, but nobody is going bankrupt there because of it.
 
<blockquote>This argument is the most intellectually dishonest the GOP has had since the run up to the Iraq war.</blockquote>


I have not seen this as a GOP argument. I am asking the question will this get past the Supreme Court is someone challenges it.
 
A "neutral law of general applicability" does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If the law applies to the general public and is enacted without the intention to specifically target a religious practice but simply has the incidental effect of prohibiting a religious practice, the law is constitutional. Because the requirement to maintain health insurance applies to the general public and is not specifically intended to require individuals to receive medical against their religious beliefs, it will be deemed constitutional.



Although the law would be constitutional, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act demands a higher level of scrutiny than the constitution where federal government enacts a laws that has the effect of prohibiting religious practices: the federal government must have a "compelling state interest" to enact the law.



At any rate, it's doubtful that a federal court would overturn a requirement of health insurance on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA because the offended groups would not be compelled to receive medical treatment; they only need insurance.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247104369]



You can say a lot of bad things about the Canadian system, but nobody is going bankrupt there because of it.</blockquote>


Maybe, but in some cases Canadians have a <a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/13/1754">significantly higher risk of death</a>. So, would you rather be bankrupt or dead?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247103796] Nobody will extend my wife insurance. </blockquote>


Can I ask why? Is she high risk? Or do you mean that no one will extend <em>affordable</em> insurance to her?
 
<blockquote>Why do you say that like it?s a bad thing?</blockquote>


I didn't say it like it is a bad thing. I was highlighting must because there seemed to be confusion that this is not a choice to go into the pool or not.



<blockquote>You can say a lot of bad things about the Canadian system, but nobody is going bankrupt there because of it.</blockquote>


I don't want to debate Canada just yet.



It won't make a difference if it won't make it past the Supreme Court.
 
<blockquote>At any rate, it?s doubtful that a federal court would overturn a requirement of health insurance on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA because the offended groups would not be compelled to receive medical treatment; they only need insurance. </blockquote>


That's the answer I was looking for.



One more question could they hold up enactment of this by taking it to the Supreme Court?



In other words could this be imposed while challenges were still being made?
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247107069]



One more question could they hold up enactment of this by taking it to the Supreme Court?



In other words could this be imposed while challenges were still being made?</blockquote>


As far as I know, a law will continue to be in force until struck down. Should it be struck down at the trial or appellate court, I believe it will be null until such a decision is overturned.
 
[quote author="three sheets" date=1247106102][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1247104369]



You can say a lot of bad things about the Canadian system, but nobody is going bankrupt there because of it.</blockquote>


Maybe, but in some cases Canadians have a <a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/13/1754">significantly higher risk of death</a>. So, would you rather be bankrupt or dead?</blockquote>


maybe you should do a little follow up and present a "fair and balanced" view, rather than one promoting your agenda?





<blockquote>Conclusions? Previous studies have suggested a clear divergence in invasive cardiac therapy for AMI patients between the United States and Canada on the basis of health care financing and structural differences. Our findings of similar treatment patterns in the northeastern United States and Ontario suggest that regional practices may have a greater impact on treatment patterns than the respective health care delivery systems.</blockquote>
<a href="http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/2/196">from the same journal</a>





<blockquote>Conclusion Patients with heart failure who are hospitalized in the United States had lower short-term mortality at 30 days, but 1-year mortality rates were not significantly different between the United States and Canada.</blockquote>




<a href="http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/165/21/2486">the deal</a>
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1247114867]

maybe you should do a little follow up and present a "fair and balanced" view, rather than one promoting your agenda?

</blockquote>


Why would I do that? I'm making an argument, my argument is buttressed by the article I linked to. If you want to refute it, then you refute it.



My statement still stands: in <em>some</em> cases, Canadian health care results in more instances of death. You've posted articles that suggest 1) that in a one year study, the care in the circumstance of people older than 65 with heart failure have resulted in similar mortality rates or 2) the lower mortality rates in the US is due to "regional" practices. My statement is still true: of heart attack patients, the five-year mortality rate was 21.4% among the Canadian study participants and 19.6% among U.S. participants - translation: in <em>this</em> case, US health care has resulted in lower mortality rate.



If you want to now "promote your agenda" by refuting mine, go right ahead.
 
Yes, we have a lot of great doctors in this country that the people with money and/or the right insurance can access, but our system is broken and NEEDS to be fixed. My husband tried to get insurance on his own because COBRA was outrageous and he was denied because he takes a medicine for cold sores and got one prescription for Viagra when we first started dating because he was nervous around me. There was no option for him to be covered for everything but the cold sores and "penile dysfunction."



I signed up for Cobra when I left my last job and found that my former employer took the money and didn't actually pay the provider so I actually had to pay my doctor bill on TOP of paying for the insurance 100% myself. I was able to move to an individual plan as long as I was not going to have a baby.



I work for a NZ company and all the better off folks have a supplemental insurance so that they have the best care and everyone else who doesn't have this at least has SOME care. It's similar to what my mom has from her county retirement. She has medicaid through the fed government, but she paid into a system that covers her for life so the insurance pays the difference.





If everyone is in the pool, then it all gets spread. As a nation we have the tax base to provide everyone with minimal coverage. If you want more than that. then you can buy a supplemental policy. We have chosen to take the tax dollars and buy more bombs rather than provide a basic coverage for everyone.



Both my husband and I have fantastic insurance because he works for a progressive company. Yeah, his company is run by a bunch of liberals who value health care for their employees.



We have a very bad system right now and the GOP's implementation of individual health savings accounts did NOTHING to fix it. It's broken and I want smart people in government to make it better. Will it be perfect? Heck no, but it will be better than the garbage system that we have now.
 
Hey look, another proposal to surtax the wealthy...



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_57">House Dems eye surtax on wealthy for healthcare</a>
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1247138033]Hey look, another proposal to surtax the wealthy...



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_57">House Dems eye surtax on wealthy for healthcare</a></blockquote>


No Worries he already started taxing the poor and plans more taxes for them too.





More poor people smoke then rich and some don't have the means to pay for cessation products. Please don't tell me they can quit I know because I quit 3 years ago. Point is more poor people smoke then rich and would probably have to go cold turkey.



Now you want to tax Soda and alcohol too. I bet that doesn't effect rich people as much as poor.



<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html">More Taxes</a>
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1247177445]Now you want to tax Soda and alcohol too. I bet that doesn't effect rich people as much as poor.



<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html">More Taxes</a></blockquote>


You are correct, it would affect poor people more. That's because it's a flat tax, like the sales tax. Next time it comes up, I'll be sure to put you down as pro- progressive tax plans.
 
<blockquote>We have a very bad system right now and the GOP?s implementation of individual health savings accounts did NOTHING to fix it. It?s broken and I want smart people in government to make it better. Will it be perfect? Heck no, but it will be better than the garbage system that we have now.

</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.healthandsharing.com/21/articledetail">Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System</a>



<blockquote>if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA?s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2 </blockquote>




<blockquote>As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 out of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as ?superior? to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1

</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.healthandsharing.com/13/newsarticledetail">Other Countries Cut Out Services to Reach their Low Cost Status</a>



If you read the article it seems like the health care cost is being kept donw by cutting services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top