Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Aug 12, 2011.
It's not exactly "unprecedented."
That looks like a law for a specific profession, partycock. That is hardly the same as saying everyone has to buy it.
I realize that, the article even points that out. But to say the government mandating people to buy insurance is not unprecedented is wrong too. Other than farming, I'd say being a merchant marine was a pretty huge employment sector at the time.
Want to make more people buy medical insurance?
Make it a crime for any doctor, nurse, EMT, hospital, etc... to treat anyone for any condition who does not have insurance, you'll be shocked at how many people who claim they can't afford medical insurance are suddenly able to do so.
You are a cocksucker. I WANT medical insurance. There is no fucking way I could afford it.
Or they just won't go to doctors. Plus you get the added benefit of medical professionals suffering from the guilt of wanting to save someone's life but not being allowed to do so for some reason.
Hypothetically, say there was a bus accident. Should the ER go through everyone's wallets and purses and laptop cases to make sure they have insurance before treating them, or let everyone die?
This is foolish. You cannot bar someone from treating a patient. This would be just as, if not more, unconstitutional that mandating health insurance.
Just because they did it early in the country's history doesn't mean it wasn't wrong then too. Let's not forget that the guy who wrote "all men are created equally, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." was a slave owner. They wrote great rules, they just didn't follow them either.
Didn't you see the episode of the Sopranos where the hospital told Tony they checked to see if he was insured before the ambulance brought him in, if he didn't have insurance they would have taken him to Martin Luther King jr Memorial Hospital.
I just said this would be a way to make more people buy insurance, I didn't address any moral or legal issues.
I'm sure I did, I don't really remember every detail. Was he involved in a bus crash or was he the sole injured? Besides, under your scheme, if he didn't have his card with him, they would have just left him on the street.
What if they have no insurance but a lot of cash?
I bet you could, you'd just have to change your lifestyle, something you obviously don't want to do.
$30 will buy more than enough beans and rice to feed you for a month - that alone will save you a few hundred every month which can be used to buy medical insurance
This is one of the main things that piss me off about this mandate. They just assume that everyone will eventually use the healthcare system at some point. They also just assume that no one can afford to pay cash for it when they eventually do use healthcare services. It makes no fucking sense to make a law saying Bill Gates has to buy health insurance, like he can't afford to pay the $500 bill for an emergency room visit.
Well if you're on a city bus, you'll have to go to the black hospital anyway. If you're on a tour bus or charter bus, you'll probably get to go to the white hospital.
I think it was called a "Wallet Biopsy"
Its incentive enough to always have your proof of insurance with you.
Same thing that happens now, they'll take you to MLK Memorial then when you prove your insured they'll transfer you to the good hospital.
What emergency room are you going to that's only $500 ?
Oh literal Cousin Dave.
The number didn't matter, the point was that Bill Gates could buy the whole fucking hospital, but he has to buy insurance instead.
That's kind of the point. You're saying it's wrong now and comparing it to slavery is a lousy emotion-based argument. And I was more arguing the "precedent" of it, which the author was flat out wrong when he said this:
People like bringing up the WWTFFD argument all the time and they were all still alive and very active in government at the time when they mandated a huge sector of the economy with "unique properties" to make sure its employees had health insurance.
So you're resorting to Kirk levels of arguments now?
The law would not apply to Bill Gates. I'm pretty sure he already has health insurance.
I assume you're being silly, but let me pose this question seriously. After how many months of living exclusively on beans and rice, would death seem like the better option?
I know, the whole system is fucked up.
My father was a suregon and he had no idea how to fix things, his last few years, he spent more time having to do paper work than he did doing surgery or teaching.
The gov't just makes it worse though, anytime power is taken from the doctors and patients and given to bureaucrats, administrators, etc... it just fucks it up even more.
Well every couple of weeks you might be able to get an onion, a can of Spam, or even some cornbread!
An onion?! Look at Mr. Bill Gates over here!
I'm impressed. I never thought I'd see someone successfully connect with a "But John Adams...!" :icon_cool
No, no, I wasn't comparing this to slavery at all. I was saying that if the Founding Fathers were able to overlook that little inconsistency called slavery, then it's not that surprising that they didn't follow their own rules regarding interstate commerce.
On the subject of interstate commerce, I see this maritime insurance thing (which I admit I had never heard of until now) as a condition of engaging in interstate commerce. There is nothing wrong (legally, not in my personal opinion) with the government telling interstate truck drivers that they must have auto insurance as a condition of their employment as a truck driver. They are engaged in interstate commerce, and as such the government can regulate their conduct.
Being a human who is born in the United States is not interstate commerce. Even going to the hospital is not interstate commerce. Even buying insurance is not interstate commerce, because you could conceivably buy insurance from a small, local company that only serves people within that state or county.
So, I think it is still unprecedented to force the purchase of a product as a condition of being alive, rather than as a condition of participating in commerce.
After about the 10th time you farted under the covers and it wafted up in your face.
I'm sure the lawyers/politicians will somehow try and tie it to some sort of obscure interstate commerce condition.