Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[SadisticNature]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

[steelish]

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.

For one thing, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 WAS unconstitutional and went unchallenged. There is still much controversy surrounding it and it has had 200 amendments to it since it passed.

And, in the words that so many like to use...the Health Care bill is going to set PRECEDENCE for the possibility of other Congressional interference into our every day lives. I find it hard to believe that the proponents of this bill (the ones who are not politicians) are 100% certain that this bill will be good and right for the future of our country.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun )

[DuncanONeil]

Furthermore, EVERYTHING written is an opinion piece to a certain extent. The only ones that are not, are scientific analysis or statistics reports. You might read something and garner one thing from it, while I read it and get something else. Very little that is written is black and white. (that wasn't intended as a pun )

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

[steelish]

Need I really say this? The Global Warming "scientific reports"! I believe they have been shown to be opinion pieces. Or at least suspect of being so!

I know, I know...I thought of it even as I wrote that, but a REAL scientist writes the facts. I no longer consider those people REAL scientists.

Unfortunately, they have now given science a bad name. I'm hoping (as with most things) the bad apples there do not spoil the bushel.

[DuncanONeil]

The issue at hand is not health care, but helath insurance. The all inclusive health insurance is one of the major contributers to the high cost of health care.
Were we the people still responsible for choosing and paying for a portion of our health care prices would not be so high.
Case in point Lasik surgery is not covered in most plans yet since inception the price of such surgery has dropped. It is a completely consumer driven product. As such has improved its equipment and lowered its cost at a quick pace.
High deductible with medical savings accounts would be a good start, tort reform, interstate competition. But the Dems don;t like these ideas as there is a huge measure of personal responsibility inherent in them.

Technically I'm not sure we have any constitutional protection against a government trying to force people to buy black and white televisions or pay a tax penalty. No one will try it though as they'd lose the election and get it repealed immediately.

My issue with it being an opinion piece by a republican senator is you presented it as "This might enlighten everyone". Opinion pieces seldom settle things. They sometimes introduce useful information but as I've shown above much of it doesn't apply.

Health care is fundamentally different from other services however. When you choose to have health-care you are basically saying that if you get seriously ill you'll pay for it yourself until you can't, at which point you'll apply for government aid due to financial need, and the taxpayers will pay for it. You aren't choosing to not have healthcare at all, you're choosing to not pay for healthcare and if disaster strikes you rely upon government programs. Yet those programs cost money, and if people abuse them in that way those costs rise.

The government is basically saying everyone should have reliable healthcare so that people aren't put in situations like this. They can't force people to buy it, so the can put a tax penalty for not buying it, and use those penalties to offset the costs to the government from uninsured people getting seriously ill. Is this the optimal way to deal with those costs? Probably not. However it is a practical incentive to get insurance.

As for my point about constitutionality I think you have basically made my argument by expressing that constitutionality is a feeling. Just because you feel a certain way doesn't make something true. Truth is something that comes from layers of evidence and careful decision not opinions based on feelings.

I think the best example to work from however is by your standards:

The federal reserve act of 1913 is unconstitutional.

It has a lot of similarities in that both force individuals under the law to "buy" things. In the case of the federal reserve act banks (who are individuals according to legal precedent) have to buy shares of the national bank. In the case of the health care bill, its insurance or pay a penalty.

In both cases the constitution does not provide a mandate as it neither denies the states the right to banking nor does it require the federal government to do so.

Hence either the establishment of a US National Bank was unconstitutional yet went unchallenged for nearly a century, or the standard you have set for constitutionality is incorrect.