Is it unconstitutional to require you to buy auto ins, or a car, or a phone, or sell to x? no.

[Leopolds Ghost]

Kelo and a host of other SCOTUS rulings cementing corporate rule saw to that. So, naturally, people who are used to the current system and see no injustice in it (being not adversely affected by majoritarian requirements that, being in the majority who would already use such services, are not affected by mandates to do so) see no problem declaring further instances of mercantilism constitutional.

Now you get your yellow ticket of leave.

The same argument was used to advance universal citizen ID, and eminent domain for private purposes.

Interestingly, no one makes the opposite argument, to support, say, the existence of public housing
or other public infrastructure or public safety net. The constitution, it is assumed, is a malleable
document when it comes to getting rid of those things (privatizing them and replacing them with
individual mandates, which Mitt Romney called the aim of the Republican economy.)

Within a few years, this host of precedent will be used to force Americans to purchase, say, cable
broadband in a second Telecom act that the NYT claims will "make broadband the communications medium
of choice, gradually eliminating telephone and broadcast television service." Because no one should
have to live without a universal set-top box, not when their children's learning tools are on it.

[ixion]

1. Exactly

this opened the door to mandating the purchase of any number of products from private, for-profit companies.

It's (yet another) dangerous threshold crossed on the way to a Corporatist Police State.

[tomber]

2. auto insurance

requirements are set by state law. Many states have exemptions to the insurance requirements for things like farm use vehicles and some will even allow you to pay a registration fee that allows you to not have to carry auto insurance.

[virginia mountainman]

11. Auto insurance is OPTIONAL in VA..

You must pay a un insured motor vehicle fee to get your plates, but it is legal.

Also Farm Vehicles are exempted from most insurance and inspection requirements, and YES they can be operated on public roads.

Auto insurance argument is a canard.. If you chose not to have a car, you don't have auto insurance..

[Bluerthanblue]

16. if you live in a rural area with NO public transportation as I do- it isn't a "choice"

it is a necessity.

And before you try to claim that I have a 'choice' as to where I live, I don't. I would have to go on public assistance in order to pay for a place to live if forced to move to an urban area.

Does Virginia allow you to remain "uninsured" if you've had an accident? Here in NH we don't require motor vehicle insurance or make you pay a 'fee' to avoid it- But if you have 'points' on your liscence or have had a DUI you DO have to purchase liability insurance.

[kenny blankenship]

24. Stop it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT does not mean the same thing as "more convenient"

It is childish to carry on like that.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with 'convienience'-

I have shelter here in this rural area. I cannot be arrested for vagrancy where I am now, I am not tresspassing on anyone elses property, and I can 'live' here without having to rely on public assistance. I CANNOT do that in an urban area.

Trying to dismiss my perspective and statements by name-calling is a little 'childish' is it not?

And you have no right to tell me to "stop-it".

What is your problem?

[mike_c]

26. it might not be a "practical" choice, but it IS a legal choice....

You have neighbors without auto insurance, and no one is arresting them for it, or fining them, whatever. I guarantee there are people in your sphere of friends that do not drive-- children, for example-- and who have no auto insurance.

[woo me with science]

33. Of course it's a choice.

It's just not a choice you happen to like.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. no it is no more a 'choice' for me, than it would be for me to

pay the $695 that I'll likely have to pay to exempt me from having to purchase a plan for health insurance.

I'm expecting to have to pay the fine, and I'm ok with that. Because I honestly do believe that Health Reform has to start somewhere, even if it hurts me at the beginning and I'm very unlikely to live long enough to benefit from it. It will benefit others and is the beginning of a positive direction for all. imo.

[taterguy]

95. Fine. You choose to be so out of shape that you can't bike places

No wonder you're so concerned about health.

Is that better?

[Hello_Kitty]

63. My Grandmother never drove in her entire life. Lived in a rural area. eom

[Bluerthanblue]

69. your Grandmother was fortunate to have

access to others who DID drive though.

Not everyone does.

I could walk the 6miles down to the village where we used to have an IGA too. But it didn't survive the influx of the "Supermarket" which opened up near the interstate 12yrs ago. Neither did many of the other small grocers surrounding towns. Our 'general store' is gone too. So is our feed store.

The competition of large stores has crippled many small towns. When the little stores and businesses close down, there are even less jobs, and fewer neighbors available to give others transportation as well.

It's not a choice for many people. I'm grateful to have my 22yr old car.
No buss, train, or taxi service at all in our area.

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. Mind you, those SCOTUS rulings are fucked up. But the constitution is what SCOTUS says it is.

That's why Jefferson had his doubts about enshrining the bill of rights as a be-all end-all.

That's why he was so insistent on rights being construed as
inalienable and recognized, not granted, by the constitution
(unlike how every other government in e.g. Europe sees it)

and the little bit about ALL rights unmentioned being assumed to be reserved to the
people (which is where the umbrella right to privacy, which also no longer exists thanks
to bills like this and FISA, comes from, hence why you don't hear anyone use Roe v. Wade
as a precedent anymore because they no longer support the umbrella right to privacy
as a concept.)

[Statistical]

5. The Constituion and Bill of Rights GRANT nothing. It protect rights including enumerated ones

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. That's what I was getting at. Sorry, am tired.

[BridgeTheGap]

4. When the switch was made to digital t.v. broadcast, polls showed that 40+% of those on

analog broadcast thought they were required to switch to cable or satelite to continue watching t.v.
Of course those 2 entities (cable and satelite) pushed hard for the switch to digital broadcast. Think they knew what they were doing?

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. They want to kill broadcast instead of expanding it thanks to digital spectrum so as to charge $$.

The objective in everything these days is that (to quote those famous Bank of America
execs, or whoever said it) any way they can squeeze more money out of the captive consumer
they will do so.

Obama Admin FCC advocating selling off the broadcast spectrum for more cell towers.

BUT one should be grateful they weren't passing the bill today, or they'd
have simply put an excise tax on landline users.

Of course, the much bigger danger is you end up with Internet and cable combined
like a whole bunch of idealistic futurists predicted back in the 60's - 70s when
they thought interactive TV would be the ultimate goal of home computing -- and
imagined this to be a good thing, in the sense of making TV socially responsible.

I remember reading children's books as a kid telling me how in the future, us kids
would all be taught class on our TVs at home and could press a button on the remote
to turn on the microwave, open the front door, etc. without getting up from chair.

[Hannah Bell]

88. worst of all possible worlds, we have: pay TV *with* commercials.

people are losing their historical memory.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stargazer99]

10. As in enlightened European countries

It takes all to participate to enable caring for all of citizens. You cons had 8 years to correct an inhuman situation and you didn't. What makes you think only you count? Money & wealth? Value only lies in things? So much for the party of human values (anti-abortion). Life does not consist of just breathing. The ability of the well placed to deny the reality amazes me.

[JVS]

"You cons"?

Try again

[RedCloud]

15. Despite the octet, I don't think we were referenced as cons.

I often can conservatives "cons" because that is what they do, con people out of their money, homes, health insurance, etc.

[Deep13]

13. Yeah, insurance for driving, but not for living.

I submit it IS unconstitutional to require someone to buy a car or a telephone. While mandated coverage might be a good thing, I'm a little dubious that it is Constitutional. If it was a tax it would come under the 16th Amendment, but it isn't. It's an order to pay a private/corporate insurer.

[Mari333]

14. good post

[Romulox]

17. The operative question becomes: which product is the gov't forbidden from mandating we purchase.

One can find no activity that doesn't "affect interstate commerce" in some way.

[coti]

81. That's the right question.

What's the legal test determining where the government must stop?

I haven't seen anyone advocating for the constitutionality of this law, anywhere, propose one.

It seems that, for many on this board, the test is simply whether a "D" or an "R" passed the law.

[doc03]

18. Products we are required to buy from for profit corporations,

Here are some:
Seat belts, safety glass, catalytic converters and other safety and environmental parts of an automobile.

If I build a house I am required to follow federal state and local building codes that force me to pay extra for products and labor I may not want.

I live in Ohio and I am not required to wear a helmet when on my motorcycle, but if I go to the state of WV I must have and wear a helmet.

When I go boating on state waters I am required to have certain safety items in my boat, if I go on federally controlled waters such as the Ohio River or Lake Erie I am required to have additional safety equipment by the Coast Guard.

I am sure others could come up with many other examples.

[Statistical]

20. You aren't required to buy any of those.

Nobody is requiring you to buy a car or pay a tax.
Nobody is requiring you to build a house or pay a tax.
Nobody is requiring you to own a boat or pay a tax.

Regulating commerce is one thing:
Requiring safety belts in cars
Requiring builds be up to code
Requiring safety equipment and seaworthiness for boats

The govt certainly has the authority (granted by Constitution) to regulate interstate commerce.

It is entirely different to regulate "non-commerce".
You must buy a car or face a tax.
You must build a home or face a tax.
You must have a boat or face a tax.
You must purchase for profit insurance (you may neither need nor want) or face a tax.

[doc03]

21. Well if you don't want to buy insurance go ahead but

when you find out you have cancer tomorrow don't expect me to pay for your f-----g health care. Fine I have no problem with that die if that's what you want. Nobody is required to pay a tax? That's news to me.

[Statistical]

25. I do want I current do have insurance.

I just don't believe the federal govt has the power to force anyone to buy a product, any product.

If govt can mandate healthcare (or face a fine/tax) then it can mandate you buy a car to help the auto struggling auto industry. What about piracy? Lets help record industry by forcing you to buy 10 CD or face a tax.

There is no "special health-care exception". If the govt can mandate one product they can mandate any product. Given the power corporations already have over Congress I think that is a dangerous precedent.

On the other hand I would favor:

Everyone must show they have either:
a) credible insurance
b) ability to self-insure (assets, bonds, etc)

If they don't then they are automatically enrolled into public option (payments via payroll taxes) with subsidies for the poor.

That would be Constitutional in my opinion. Forcing me to buy ANY for profit product from private industry is not.

[doc03]

42. First of all there was no way to get a public option

we got what we have by the skin of our teeth. Myself I agree if someone has the assets to self insure that's fine, just don't come begging for help when they get sick pay up or drop dead. Case closed.

[Statistical]

47. Not true.

The lawsuit is against the mandate. If mandate was found to be Unconstitutional there would be a need for something to take up the slack.

Passing legislation that enrolled anyone without credible coverage (or ability to self insure or religion exemption) automatically into public option program (paid for by payroll deductions with subsidies based on income) would be one method.

Even insurance companies would be for that because otherwise having requirement to offer insurance to all Americans without mandate on healthy to participate would be prohibitive.

[doc03]

55. Where have you been for the last year? We don't even have

a public option and the Republicans were able to convince about 70% of Americans that even this bill was a massive government take over of health care. In my opinion as long as you have lobbyists for insurance companies in Washington and now the ability for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on advertising you will never see a public option. Like I said as far as I am concerned if you don't want insurance, or want to be self insured or your religion forbids it that's fine. Just don't ask me to pay up when you get sick. You don't wreck your car then call an insurance agent to get insurance after the fact.

[Statistical]

59. You seem to miss the point.

If the courts rule a mandate is Unconstitutional they will have no choice.

If say next year the Supreme Court rules the govt does NOT have the delegated power to mandate purchase of insurance from private party the rest of bill would stand. The limits of premiums, on discrimination in pricing, on no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc. To remove those would require also require 60 votes in Senate.

Eliminating pre-existing denials requires everyone be covered. If you can't mandate they be covered then they MUST be covered by a govt program.

Essentially Republicans would be trapped between a rock and a hard place.

At that point without a public option (to ensure 100% insurance rate) most insurance companies would be bankrupt in a short period of time. They would be crying, pleading, begging Republicans to support a bipartisan public health program that would auto-enroll anyone without coverage. It would be the only thing that saves the entire industry at that point.

[doc03]

60. Maybe that will happen, I can't see into the future or have any

idea how the courts would rule.

[Statistical]

62. Well neither can I.

Maybe they will find it Constitutional (I think the odds are in govt favor simply due to bastardization of Commerce Clause).

However court doesn't rule beyond the question asked. Any lawsuit would need to be very specific to avoid being thrown out of court to begin with. You can sue "the entirety of healthcare legislation because I don't like it".

A lawsuit on the Constitutionality of mandates I would support.

[Romulox]

28. Where is this bizarre myth of all this "free" oncology care coming from?

It's ridiculous. :hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. If you want to buy something, the worst thing you can do is mandate its purchase from private seller

Basic Econ 101.

[Mari333]

22. [phone]

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. Post of the Century. Defines mercantilism

Everything set up in the wake of the 1700s from Karl Marx to Adam Smith is against mercantilism.

[daa]

70. TY nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. But each of those is predicated on you willingly purchasing an optional

item - IF you ride a motorcycle, you are required to wear a helmet, but the government can't demand that you buy a motorcycle. IF you drive a car, you are required to carry insurance, but the government can't require car ownership.

The only prerequisite for buying private health insurance is breathing.

Not the same thing. Of course, you COULD simply choose to stop breathing...

[doc03]

30. The whole purpose of purchasing insurance is to protect you

from some future event. It is simple if you feel you don't need health insurance or pay the tax that's fine but when you come down with cancer don't expect to be cared for by the taxpayers or insurance that other people paid for. It's people like you that force me to pay for uninsured motorists insurance on my car. If you want Medicare you must pay into it. If we would could have gotten a public option you would have paid into it or paid taxes to support it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. Interestingly enough, insurance originated as a protection racket. Crassus built wealth on fire ins.

[Matariki]

27. Give an example of something EVERY citizen must buy from a private business

that is not dependent on another voluntary purchase or activity, i.e. safety gear for operating machinery, etc.

I defy you to name ANYTHING that every man, woman, and child must purchase and own simply because they are alive in the United States.

[doc03]

31. Cloths food n/t

[kenny blankenship]

32. Show me the law

[doc03]

35. Well if I go outside naked I will be arrested n/t

[kenny blankenship]

36. What is the law that says you must pay someone for clothes? Show it to me now.

[doc03]

39. You are just being ridiculous. Like I said if you don't want to buy

health insurance or pay the fee, f-----g die when you get sick. Don't expect my insurance company or my taxes to pay for your medical care. You have a perfect right to not buy insurance as far as I am concerned if you would prefer to get sick and die more power to ya, I don't care..

[Statistical]

43. However the law doesn't allow that.

The law mandate one to purchase insurance (which may be of no value due to high premiums & denied claims) or face punitive action.

[Romulox]

53. The States and the Federal Government are two distinct entities, which distinct powers...

:hi:

[Romulox]

37. "Compelled by necessity" is different than "compelled by your government"

Each of us "must" die, for example. Do you think that gives rhetorical cover for the US government to kill people?

[Bluerthanblue]

44. it's not 'legal' to be without shelter in many places- it is not legal to be

naked in most places. Even if the climate allowed for living without clothing, it wouldn't be allowed by law.

"Public property" doesn't allow 'habitation'- so you either have to "own" property which is deemed "habitable" (cert. of occupancy) or purchase it from private entities- ie: motel, rooming house, apartment etc.

there is one "CHOICE" that some people faced with this situation have- they can choose to violate the law to a degree which would cause them to be incarcerated, which would provide them with shelter and clothing, but at what cost?

[Romulox]

52. That's not technically true.

Loitering and vagrancy are not the same offense as being without shelter. It is also very important to determine who the actors are in your analogies--it's a local Sheriff, not the Federal Government, that rousts vagrants.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. But does the government tell us WHO we MUST buy our clothes

and shelter from?

This legislation is being touted as confirming a right to healthcare - and then makes us pay private entities for access to that right.

THAT is why most civilized countries have gone with some form or other of universal single-payer (Germany, and a few others, has universal not-for-profit, rather than single-payer).

ONLY HERE do we exercise the right to health care by paying 30% off the top to private corporations. Now, by mandate.

And if you protest that the legislation caps profits on the premiums paid, I have two words for you: Arthur Anderson.

[Bluerthanblue]

64. well, we ALL supposedly have the 'rights' to

"life" too don't we? and "liberty"? and "the pursuit.. of happiness"?

We have to pay for access to many of our "rights"-

I'm in complete agreement with you that single-payer universal care IS the way to go- and I'm sure America will get there, but not without begining somewhere. And I'm expecting that if I live long enough I'll have to pay the $695 penalty because I won't be able to pay the premium on any policy available to me, even WITH a subsidy. And that's ok. It's a step forward at least. a miniscule one, but a step towards something better that where we are now. imo

[Leopolds Ghost]

78. What about those of us who don't have $695 to live with at the end of the year?

My organization that I work for couldn't afford $1000 minimum insurance for years. We still can't afford board liability insurance which is another $1000 a year.

[Matariki]

38. Disingenuous argument. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

29. clothing or body covering of some kind- shelter of some sort-

if you have children, you are required to provide many things for them. If you don't provide what society deems to be 'adequate', you can be fined, have your children removed from your care, and sometimes prosecuted. (just want to say i think this is a GOOD or at least necessary thing (sadly) )

When America was first founded it was possible for people to 'homestead'- In our country today if you don't have funds to purchase shelter, cannot or do not have others who will take you in, you CAN be arrested for vagrancy. It has become, and is becoming more and more, illegal to be "homeless".

Where is the 'choice' in that?

[doc03]

41. What is the argument here anyway? Are you people oposed

to the HCR bill? If there was a public option wouldn't we be required to pay for it in some way? If the idea is you want a public option the point is moot, politically you couldn't get it.

[Statistical]

45. Public option is govt program.

The wording of legislation could be Constitutional and provide for strong public option.

Pass legislation that one must have credible coverage (or show ability to self insure) or they will be enrolled in public option. No fines, no penalties.

Either you have credible coverage, ability to self insure or you are enrolled in a govt program. Exemptions for religious beliefs could be added. Subsidies for lower income Americans could also be added. Premiums for public option would be through payroll taxes.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. good question.

We all "pay" Private insurers as it is anyway. When I purchase a 5lb. bag of flour a portion of the price I pay goes towards the health insurance of many people who have handled that flour in some way. From the Shopkeeper to the Trucker to the Processor to the Farmer and all those in between, including the CEO's of the companies connected to putting that bag of flour available for me to buy.
If you take the obscene profits out of providing that essential service (health care), the cost EVERYTHING is bound to be reduced, and that reduction would- I believe- more than cover adequate care for ALL of us.

I know we will get to there someday. This bill is at least, a step in the right direction.

:hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. Funny you didn't say that when all these people were being played like patsies by HCR wonks.

thinking they would get a public "option" when the name alone tells you the primary purpose of the bill is to force as many Americans as possible into the private marketplace.

[eridani]

89. The argument is that people who have no objection to paying government a tax to receive a service

--have huge objections to being forced to use mass murderers as intermediaries between themselves and their doctors. No Medicare bureaucrat EVER got a raise for denying a lot of claims.

[LanternWaste]

46. Reductio ad absurdum

"Within a few years, this host of precedent will be used to force Americans"

Reductio ad absurdum.

[G_j]

48. "the aim of the Republican economy"

that says it quite well

[tritsofme]

50. The precedent was set 60 years ago with Wickard v Filburn

The federal government has the power to regulate commerce, essentially to the extent that they are restrained by voters.

[Statistical]

54. In Filburn the govt mandated Filburn NOT participate in commerce

well technically that he not participate "excessively" in commerce.

This would be a further expansion of Commerce Clause.

We are essentially saying the govt has the ability to FORCE you to participate in commerce.

If I buy an insurance policy that transaction can be regulated. The govt can set terms, conditions, acceptable behavior, etc. All as part of regulating interstate commerce.

What the govt is asking us to accept now if that powers extended to regulating "non-commerce". That you, I, everyone can be forced to participate in commerce activity they don't desire.

If it can be done for health-care it can be done for any industry. Cable TV revenue falling. Congress mandates everyone purchase cable or sat TV for the common good. Failure to do so will result in a fine/tax.

[tritsofme]

61. Your decision not to purchase mandated health insurance would have an aggregate effect

on interstate commerce.

Unless you were to never use any healthcare services, your choice not to purchase mandated insurance would effect the broader market, through higher overall costs, less diverse risk pools, ect and would definitely effect commerce in a way that the federal government has an interest, and the ability to regulate, including fines for non-compliance.

[Statistical]

65. Do you realize how dangerous that would be as a precedent.

By the same logic me keeping older vehicles and fixing them up reduced commerce in new vehicle sales.
A $1,000 tax on people who haven't purchased a new vehicle in last 5 years would be equally Constitutional.

Why stop at $1,000? Make the tax $500,000. You have now defacto forced everyone in the country to buy an auto every 5 years.

I think it is a matter for the courts to see how far the federal govt power via the Commerce Clause extends before we take that jump.

[tritsofme]

67. I have no problem stipulating that the federal government has very broad regulatory power

The national elections we hold every two years are the best safeguard we have against the type of tax you propose.

[Statistical]

68. Sometimes the majority can do very evil stuff.

They had elections every 2 years in Germany.

There is nothing special about Americans or inherently evil about Germans. Nazism could have just as easily risen in the ranks of the United States.

There was a reason safeguards were put in place so United States wouldn't operate as a "51% has absolute and complete power" model.

We dismantle those safeguards bit by bit at our own peril.

[tritsofme]

71. I don't know what this has to do with Nazi Germany

Nor do I know what laws that are duly passed by Congress and signed by the President have to do with "absolute and complete power" being exercised by any party.

There are lots of scary theoretical powers that governments may have, but accountability to voters keeps them on a short leash.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. Well, for starters, it's to the right of Nazi Germany's health care plan, I believe.

I could be wrong.

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. Your argument is the same one used by HOAs who get people arrested for painting their house pink.

[Leopolds Ghost]

74. They're already talking about doing the cable/sat tv thing it's called "universal broadband".

With the goal of all communications media being combined into one television set-top box, rendering home computers, telephone, broadcast TV, radio and newspapers obsolete. Enjoy your "two minutes blog" from the Ministry of Comcast.

[depakid]

77. " If it can be done for health-care it can be done for any industry" No- actually it can't

Health care may not be sui generis, but it does have certain qualities that make it quite different than other industries- namely that people cannot reasonably not participate in it, and thus a mandate here is actually an attempt to internalize costs that are already spread out into the system of "healthcare commerce."

It's analogous to mandatory fees for garbage collection or pollution abatement in that sense.

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. "One cannot reasonably not participate in it" but hospitals have provided free care to indigent for

hundreds of years.

Mandatory fees for private garbage collection? Are you a libertarian?

[depakid]

80. That's the point- people ARE going to use the system and others are going to pay for it

which, among other things places a strain on the viability of hospitals and clinics.

Hence, it substantially affects commerce (and is not unconstitutional under the currently prevailing line of cases).

Private garbage collection is the norm in many places, as well- and yep, you gotta pay (and if you don't, you're externalizing your costs onto the rest of the system.

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. That makes garbage a utility. Is insurance a utility that all Americans must carry?

I thought the "problem" with health care was that people could not afford it, not that they are deadbeats.

Your hospital argument suggests you feel the indigent using services at your hospital are the "problem" with health care.

[depakid]

83. Public health is a public good; indivdual health (collectively) is similar to a utility, but

in some ways, as mentioned above, health care IS sui generis in the sense that it can't be modeled straight up as a public utility because of the enormous variation with individuals needs and demand.

(The difference is in the legal construct vs. the economic construct).

No two families on a given street will be expected to vary in the amount of garbage generated in the same degree that families will with medical care.

So the incentives won't work the same way with health as they do with throw away consumption (or energy or water requirements).

As to uncompensated indigent care- or "charity care" -or simply unpaid and/or unpayable bills (or uncollectable bills that spread out to all of the creditors in the case of bankruptcy) it is indeed a problem.

Ask any managing nurse or hospital or clinic administrator how that works.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. If hospitals had re-insurance to cover indigent care it would not be a prob-o wait, its NOT a prob.

Which kool aid drinker told you indigent care and care for the uninsured were the problem with health care costs?

[depakid]

87. Who taught you health care economics would be the better question

One doesn't have to support the current financing scheme(s) to recognize some of the problems that need to be addressed.

Indigent care is only one of many burdens on the system- failure to even acknowledge it is lame.

Even the teabagger I spoke with in Portland last year was willing to say "alright- I admit it- repeal EMTALA, turn them away from the ER and let them die in the streets.

(This was preferable to closing trauma centers and closing ER's).

[Romulox]

57. Yeah--Filburn isn't "on all fours" with this present case.

If, as many believe, Filburn represents the utter most limit of the Federal Government's power, an argument could be made that the present insurance mandate goes even farther down the rabbit hole.

[WeekendWarrior]

66. When did HEALTH CARE Become a Choice?

I don't care who you are, sooner or later you will need healthcare and SOMEONE will have to pay for that. Whether it's you, your parents, the insurance companies or the taxpayers.

SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. This mandate will help do that for millions of people.

Even if you have a PUBLIC OPTION. Even if you have UNIVERSAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE -- SOMEONE will have to pay for it. Whether through taxes or through a mandate.

All this bloviating nonsense about the mandate is getting really tiring.

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. "SOMEONE will have to pay for your care." And you don't want to. You want individuals responsible

For their own health-care costs.

You've forgotten that emergency room care for the indigent IS pool insurance. It existed before your Government existed.

[eridani]

92. Yes. I do want to. I want to pay the government and have the government pay the doctors

I do not want mass murderers standing between me and my doctor.

[eridani]

91. The mandate will force people to deal with thieves whose business model

--is to remove as much of your money from actually paying for care as possible.

[Umbral]

86. I failed economics twice... The first time, because I didn't understand the words they used...

The second time, because I did.

[slackmaster]

90. I think you are unclear on the boundaries between state and federal powers

It will all get worked out eventually.

[depakid]

94. On the state level, it will be interesting to see the how far the various tradtionl powers could go

Begs the question of what a legitimate state interest is.

Might not be a can of worms that the teabagging sorts would want to open.

[Hubert Flottz]

93. Is it unconstitutional to pay for wars that are based on lies?

Or John Boner's golf outings?

[Warren Stupidity]

96. forced to purchase retirement plan since '33

compelled to buy universal health care insurance since '65.

The horrors.