Comments about ‘My view: Health care decision is questionable’

The "flawed logic" is Mr. Gourdin's.

The claim that the ACA taxes people for _not_ doing something is a phony distinction.

Do people who don't have health insurance use healthcare? Yes. They get sick and suffer accidents just like anyone else. Their kids get cavities and need a dentist just like anyone else.

There are currently something like 35 million Americans currently without health insurance. Without the ACA, that number was projected to grow to 50 million in the next ten years. Such a large number of uninsured who end up in emergency rooms and in bankruptcy is a drain on our economy far greater than the cost of the ACA.

Twenty years from now conservatives will be falling all over themselves to remind voters that the individual mandate was their idea in the first place.

The only "flawed logic" is found in this writer. Blue has said all that needs to be said already so I'll just defer to his comment.

This moment in time provides us a unique opportunity that I fear is passing us by. The neccesity of this decision and the resultant arguments highlight how ineffective, and inefficient our health care system is based on both for profit access and employment.

The core problem is America didn't start off with the premise that everyone should have acces to health care. We started to build our modern system as a perk for participation in the economy, and bumbled our way from there. The result is an elitist, wealth producing industry. Now because of this if you try and go back and re-define the purpose of health care you're a socialist..anti capitalist..or against personal freedom.

The opportunity of the time is to decide is health care a neccesity for all in order to have a well functiong society, including a well functiong economy, or is health care a wealth producing industry with the side benefit of providing health care for some/most?

On the most fundamental level, health insurance isn't about paying claims, it is about assuming risk. If somebody doesn't buy health insurance, they are in fact assuming risk, regardless of whether or not they ever end up purchasing medical goods or services. Thus, being active in the "self-insurance market" happens when you assume risk--not if and when you incur a claim.

If there a logical or Constitutional reason why inactivity shouldn't be subject to taxation, Mr. Gourdin ought to be enraged about income tax deductions for dependents: by declining to engage in the activity of having large families, people with fewer kids are punished with a much higher tax burden. Does that constitute the government requiring people to have large families? Of course not.

Reality -- the reality is that when someone "assumes the risk" for their own health care without insurance, the rest of us wind up paying when their assumption fails and they need it fast.

So why do we require hospitals to take everyone who comes in, regardless of their ability to pay? People come in expecting assistance knowing full well that they are going to lie about their personal information and someone else (those of us who do pay our bills) will pick up their tab. Why is it that with healthcare we allow people to stiff the system when we would not allow it in other areas of life?

I have a rule as an educator that has rarely been proven false. That rule is "take a look at the cell phone of a student. Usually those students with the best cell phones are the ones on fee waiver". What is wrong with this picture?

Things to consider when reading, listening to, or otherwise being influenced about Heath Care.

Health care is not voluntary. It is forced upon us by our ancestors, the air we breath, the food we eat and all the people we come in contact with.

In America health care is a commercial commodity that provides private enterprise business the opportunity to profit from other people’s involuntary needs.

Private enterprise business, the health care industry, in order to protect it’s market, opposes the satisfaction of the need by any other means than private enterprise business.

Government could satisfy the need at less cost and with more consideration for the people if it were allowed to. Removal of the monopoly conditions that now limit health care such as the limit on doctors and hospital beds would allow more people to have more health care.

All the propaganda that you hear is aimed at preventing government from doing it’s job of protecting the people.

Obamacare is unconstitutional. It is not a Commerce Clause issue or a taxing issue (there are at least 21 new taxes in the bill) it is an authority issue. The U.S. Constitution does NOT grant the government authority to force us to buy any product or service. We The People know when a law is unconstitutional.
The majority of Americans did not want this law and want it repealed NOW. I am outraged.
I am to be fined because I can’t afford health insurance? and ultimately pay some portion of those 21 new taxes?
BTW - Roberts just took away my medical money with his tax. Now what do I do for my medical spending? I have to cut from other areas so I can pay this stupid fine/tax. Then I still have to find some way to pay for my medical needs.
I think I would like to join with the President, the House, the Senate, other federal workers, unions, and more than 1200 other companies and entities that are exempt from Obamacare. The very fact that these others are exempt is unconstitutional in itself. It is a violation of equality under the law.

Blue,

Fine. If your argument in response is that government encourages or discourages certain activities unfairly by offering (or not offering) tax deductions, I have no problem with eliminating deductions and lowering rates across the board.

You're responding to arguments I did not make. I did not say that the health care legislation is unnecessary. I did not say that only people with insurance use health care. I understand why people favor the Affordable Care Act (ACA). You're welcome to respond to arguments I actually made any time you wish. Yes, I understand why people feel the ACA is necessary. I understand why people feel the Court did a good thing in upholding some of its major provisions.

But even if someone is perfectly OK with the government mandating that people purchase insurance, if one picks up one end of that stick, s/he automatically picks up the other end of it. What happens when the government then uses that stick to beat you over the head to force you to do something you don't think is necessary or that you don't want to do?

The ruling, whether good or bad, is now the law of the land. We have to live with it.

Instead of arguing whether the law is good or bad, why not look at those who inflicted that law upon us? Why not demand that those who passed the law, and the President who signed the law, be held accountable for what they did?

The problem started with Congress and then extended to the Presidency.

Stop problems like this from starting by electing honest people who obey the Constitution. Honest people would know what their duty is and they would ONLY do their duty. They wouldn't pass public health care onto us because the know that public health care is not an enumerated duty of the Federal Government.

Fire those in Congress who passed the bill and fire the President who signed the bill.

That's the way it is.

We can complain until this earth passes away or we can elect honest people to Congress and an honest person as President who believe in the Supreme Law of the Land and uphold in the legislation that they pass and sign.

Paralegal vs. Supreme Court Justice?

Really?

Kenngo: "What happens when the government then uses that stick to beat you over the head to force you to do something you don't think is necessary or that you don't want to do?"

I've managed to be proud of my citizenship and pay my taxes in spite of government subsidies of oil companies, agribusiness and engaging in elective wars - all things I absolutely think are terrible misuses of our tax dollars.

You are no more coerced into funding something for which you morally disproved through the ACA than I am through the DoD.

And unlike taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and cost-plus no-bid contracts in the DoD, there is a compelling rational basis for requiring everyone to participate in health insurance.

This is in everyone's best interest.

a bit of reality: On the most fundamental level, health insurance isn't about paying claims, it is about assuming risk. If somebody doesn't buy health insurance, they are in fact assuming risk, regardless of whether or not they ever end up purchasing medical goods or services. Thus, being active in the "self-insurance market" happens when you assume risk--not if and when you incur a claim.

You're simply proving my point. If we say that [x] may happen because of activity [y], therefore, the government may mandate that people do [z] to mitigate that risk, where does it end? If the government can tell me that I'm engaging in commerce even if I don't do [z], or that it has the power to tax me even if I don't do [z], where does it end? Yes, I understand why people are in favor of the insurance mandate, and people may not see a problem with this particular exercise of government power. But what happens when the government forces them to do something with which they don't agree?

Kenngo1969: You're simply proving my point. If we say that [x] may happen because of activity [y], therefore, the government may mandate that people do [z] to mitigate that risk, where does it end? …

You are now making a different point than the one you made in the original op-ed to which I was responding. You originally said, "Even if one accepts the new premise that there is a 'self-insurance market,' one is not 'active' in that 'market' unless and until one purchases medical goods and services out of one's own pocket." That just isn’t true. If there is a self-insurance market, then you enter that market when you decline to purchase commercial insurance, not when you need medical care. We are all subject to health risks. We can either deal with that risk through insurance, or we can deal with that risk through self-insuring.

Where does it end? Be more upset with the government spending hundreds of billions on the military-industrial complex than they are about a law that imposes a small penalty on people who refuse to be financially responsible by carrying insurance.

Booshway
You want to be exempt from Obamacare? Get health insurance.

@Blue:

"The claim that the ACA taxes people for not doing something is a phony distinction."

Try this, from Pat Buchanan: 'Roberts is saying that if Congress, to stimulate the economy, orders every middle-class American to buy a new car or face a $5,000 fine, such a mandate is within its power.'

And another example from yours truly: 'If the government wanted all Americans to buy only goods made in America to stimulate the economy it could force Wal-Mart and other bog box stores to buy, stock, and put on sale only goods made in America.'

"Do people who don't have health insurance use healthcare? Yes."

Do people who don't have health insurance have and enjoy a cell phone, ipad, internet, TV cable, eat out alot? Most likely, yes.

"There are currently something like 35 million Americans currently without health insurance."

That would seem to be their prerogative.

"Such a large number of uninsured who end up in emergency rooms and in bankruptcy..."

Many Americans think it's more important to maintain freedoms for Americans guarantees by the US Constitution than it is that the uninsured die or go bankrupt.

CHS 85: "Paralegal vs. Supreme Court Justice?

Really?"

Yep. Really. And I didn't even blink when I said that, I promise! Amazing, isn't it? (Just as you didn't even blink when deciding to focus on my [alleged lack of] credentials rather than dealing with the substance of my argument.) It doesn't take a law degree, or a position at a high-powered firm, or a position in the judiciary, or a brilliant logician, to spot the flaws in the logic employed by Justice Ginsberg and Chief Justice Roberts, respectively. Plenty of people without any of those credentials (and even without paralegal certificates) are doing it.

Oh, by the way, any time you want to stop focusing on my [lack of] credentials and deal with the substance of my argument, you're welcome to do so. (I hope you don't mind if I don't hold my breath!) Perhaps you could start by answering the question I posed at the end of the piece, reposted here for your convenience: If Congress can regulate economic IN-activity by virtue of the Commerce clause, or if it can tax such inactivity, what, can it NOT do?

A bit of reality: "Be more upset with the government spending hundreds of billions on the military-industrial complex than they are about a law that imposes a small penalty on people who refuse to be financially responsible by carrying insurance."

I'm more upset that Congress now can tax inactivity. Yes, maybe its a good idea that the government can now tax the inactivity of not buying health insurance. It would also a good idea for the government to tax the inactivity, for example, of not exercising, and of failing to engage in numerous other activities which most of us know we really ought to do. Since the end of essentially forcing us to engage in these activities justifies the means, there's no limiting principle.

I know you're not upset by the Orwellian implications of that, and that would be perfectly fine ... if the rest of us didn't have to live in the world those implications create right along with you.

Roberts opened the door to socialism pure and simple.Roberts 'created' a tax ruling which was not the intent of Barack Obama at all. OBama wanted to stay away from raising "taxes" on the middle class even though that is exactly what OBamacare did in practice. Semantics aside, Roberts showed his true colors as a closet liberal / socialist and will wear that ugly badge the rest of his life.