Preaching the gospel of evidence, experiment and reason since 2003.
In California (and other states), you are required to carry auto insurance (liability) - so why don't people bellyache about that too? How's this any different? Seems like it's part of being a responsible citizen, to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powersStates can do things that the federal government can't.
Because driving a 2 ton chunk of metal at high speeds on public roads is a liability to those around me and if I'm uninsured it puts too much of the economic risk on all the other drivers which is economically inefficient.If I drive my health into the ground (say by drinking soda, becoming overweight, sky diving, etc.) it doesn't necessarily put an economic burden on others or put them at risk (unless they are paying for my medical bills out of their taxes).I suppose people poisoning their own health is bad for the economy because of the opportunity cost and lost tax revenue of unproductivity.
> If I drive my health into the ground (say by drinking soda, becoming overweight, sky diving, etc.) it doesn't necessarily put an economic burden on othersUntil you end up in the emergency room. Then we have to pay for you. And we have to pay a lot more than we would have if we'd paid to have you taken care of before you ended up in the emergency room.
The essential difference is that you can choose to not own a car which you then have to insure, you can not choose not to have a state of health which you then have to insure.
1. I generally respect the ramblings but claiming that the there is no reason to believe that the SCOTUS will not reject the single Federal Judge's ruling is FOOLISH, considering that two other Federal judges of the same rank have already ruled the other way. 2:1 is plenty of reason to believe the SCOTUS will over-rule the single judge (who happened to found and fund an anti-healthcare bill organziation) that agreed with him.2. Despite the language, the law in question is NOT a requirement to get healthcare, it is a simple tax penalty on those that don't get it (They specifically prevented jail or other punishment for failing to pay the tax penalty.) As such, it is functionally equal to raising taxes on everyone and giving a tax break to those that get insurance. Both of these actions are not only clearly legal and constitional but have in fact been REPEATEDLY done by Congresses, time and time again.3. The SCOTUS will deny the claims about unconstitionality. Our laws and Constition are about significat actions, not whether Congress used the proper word (tax increase + a tax rebate) instead of the wrong one (penalty). This is the real world, not an English Test.
> claiming that the there is no reason to believe that the SCOTUS will not reject the single Federal Judge's ruling is FOOLISHYou're right. I should have simply said that I predict (or. even more precisely, that I stand by my earlier prediction) that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling.
The claim that not getting health insurance does not have an economic effect on other is not really correct. Hospitals are required to treat emergency cases, independent of their ability to pay. Then they engage in cost shifting [read: the rest of us pay for the uninsured]. So which is going to be: required treatment + required insurance OR no required treatment, plus a discount funeral service for the poor right next door to each emergency room?
More likely: a full-fare funeral and payday loan service.
Post a Comment