Would it be OK for local governments to penalize residents for not buying health insurance?

[foolsguinea]

What mask? I’ve been saying in threads for the last month that democracy is a failure, that it’s a horrible horrible mistake. An electorate of the masses is as capable of dysfunction as any tyrant & impossible to correct short of massive bloodshed.

The kindest thing I can say for democracy is that maybe it’s not democracy itself that is so horrible, but the ridiculous reform-resistant US federal system. Too many parallel systems of privilege acting as roadblocks to allow the country to change course in time.

But no, I really think democracy is toxic. The old conservatives like Burke & Hobbes were right.

[yorick73]

@foolsguinea

What mask? I’ve been saying in threads for the last month that democracy is a failure, that it’s a horrible horrible mistake. An electorate of the masses is as capable of dysfunction as any tyrant & impossible to correct short of massive bloodshed.

The kindest thing I can say for democracy is that maybe it’s not democracy itself that is so horrible, but the ridiculous reform-resistant US federal system. Too many parallel systems of privilege acting as roadblocks to allow the country to change course in time.

But no, I really think democracy is toxic. The old conservatives like Burke & Hobbes were right.

You seem to know very little about the type of government you claim is so toxic, such a horrible mistake and a failure. Have you stopped to consider that, perhaps, the constant twisting of the language of the constitution and ridiculous ideas like “nothing is prohibited unless it is specifically prohibited in the bill of rights” may be the problem. The very nonsense that you spew is causing the most damage to this country.

[Jas09]

@Hilarity_N.Suze

Here’s the thing, I don’t want to buy any insurance.

That’s too bad, because you’re going to have to or pay a penalty.

If insurance were a great thing, people would buy it voluntarily, instead of having heavily invested politicians vote to make it a requirement, while exempting themselves in many cases.

This is actually not true. You probably heard the story mentioned up-thread about the guy that didn’t pay $75 for fire protection. Humans are notoriously bad at risk-assessment.

Now we will all have to write off the cost of buying health insurance as just another cost of being alive, I guess.

Not exactly. The cost of buying heath insurance will be part of the cost of living in a society that guarantees (through its laws) that everyone that shows up at an ER must be treated. If you propose changing that requirement (maybe the Docs have to verify insurance or means of payment before treating you?), then say so.

In case you didn’t know, there are people who never go to doctors. There are people who never get sick. There are people who get sick rarely and don’t go to the doctor when they do.

For everyone that never goes to the doctor and never gets sick, there are plenty who think they will never get sick and then do, leaving the rest of us with the bill.

And, here’s the one that happens all the time: What if you think you are sick and in need of health care, but your insurance company thinks otherwise?

This is, of course, also part of the health-care bill - limiting practices such as recission, and increasing the base-level of coverage required (making virtually worthless plans illegal).

Two things about insurance. One, if you have it, you are going to be much more likely to want to use it and to go to the doctor for every little thing.

I don’t believe this is the case. In fact, I believe that when comparing to countries in which health care is universal and single-payer, we actually consume more health care per capita than they do.

TWO, for regular, predictable things–like checkups, or acupuncture if that’s your thing–why can’t people figure out if they can afford it, and budget for it?

Because health care on the individual market is extremely expensive, and the median household income doesn’t really allow for out-of-pocket payment for these things.

Mostly I don’t think I will have to be put down like a lame horse if I get ill, because absent other people fucking around with my money, I have enough for the things I need, and can save up for things I want that I can’t immediately afford, and no burden to anyone else, either.

You got yours, screw everyone else? Or is there something more subtle than I can see here?

Also, how are you going to “save up” for chemo and radiation? A kidney transplant? Heart bypass? Do you have any idea how much these sorts of unforeseen medical procedures can cost?

I have been paying into Medicare my whole working life. What I predict is its total dissolution just as I get old enough to see some benefit from all this money.

I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that when I retire (I’m 30 now) Medicare or some equivalent health-care-for-the-elderly program will still be in place.

[UltraVires]

@yorick73

You do realize that there is a difference between what states can do and what the federal government can do, right? States can do plenty that would be considered unconstitutional for the federal government to do.

I know the difference. But my question is it solely based on the Commerce Clause?

I mean, if it “substantially affects” interstate commerce, they could order you to stop growing tomato plants in the summer, no? That being so, why couldn’t they mandate that you buy a product if they find that it is necessary to grease the wheels of commerce?

That’s the argument I keep hearing: “The government can’t make you buy something.” Where did that come from?