Off-Topic

Um, I could be wrong, but I think neal's post was tongue-in-cheek, designed to illustrate how the rationale of controlling federal health spending could lead to (seemingly) absurd results like legislating how often people have to go to the doctor and what specific tests should be performed.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Rushbo's uninsured lawn guy's trip to the ER drives up your taxes, not your premiums. Now, when we mandate that everyone have health insurance, then his negligence will drive up your premiums, because just having insurance doesn't guarantee that these people won't still just wait until they have to go the ER to get treated. That's when we'll have to legislate not just that people have health insurance, but how often and in what circumstances they have to go see a doctor, and what the doctor needs to do when they get there. I think most people view that as an absurd result, but it sounds like you're actually in favor of it. I'll give you points for consistency at least, if not sanity.

This bill would probably have passed muster if there really had been Death Panels in it.

sure, most people will eventually use some health care at some point in their life. but for many people, that isn't likely to be this year, next year, or the year after (hell, i have health insurance and haven't been to a doctor, other than the dentist, in about a decade). so how does the government have the right to make them purchase something that they don't want and are unlikely to use -- just so it can take the money they spend purchasing a useless product and give it to someone else with a preexisting condition?

it's perfectly rational to not purchase health insurance while you're in your 20s and 30s. the vast majority of the time, it's a financially sound decision. how, exactly, is making the decision not to buy something interstate commerce?

he may be the worst person in the world. and this suit has nothing to do with it

Assuming you can afford the cost of the accident/etc, not having insurance is ALWAYS a financially sound decision. Insurance companies don't exist for you to make money. By purchasing their product, you're accepting odds that always favor the house.

Of course, whether someone can afford the problem is a different story.

I have a high deductible health plan. My deductible is $5000, which I can easily afford if something goes wrong. To me, it's easily worth the difference in premiums since I'm 31 and haven't been to the doctor for anything other than a tetanus shot since I was in high school. When I was 22 right out of college, I couldn't have afforded $5000 if something had gone wrong, so regular insurance made much more sense.

What nonsense. You have no idea what percentage of them will cost the taxpayers money, or how much money. Your assumption is based on nothing.

It is unacceptable that I should have to pay for someone else's decision to roll the dice because they knew that others would pick up the tab they didnt feel like paying.

If we were cool to deny uninsured/cant prepay people emergency care it would be fine to not require them to buy insurance. But I'm not seeing the political movement to make that a reality.....

Yeah, the key part of yesterday's decision was the finding that there was no logical limitation, so in theory the government could force you to buy other things in the future. It's a fundamental abuse of power.

Almost everybody will have to buy shoes at some point in their life. People who buy crappy shoes, or don't replace their shoes regularly, can cause themselves injuries that the American people will have to pay for. Furthermore, the American shoe industry is struggling and going down the tubes. Therefore, the U.S. Government mandates that each American must purchase one pair of American-made shoes per year. This affects interstate commerce because, whenever you don't buy good shoes and then wind up spraining your ankle, we have to pay your medical bills.

This isn't entirely true. Over the last 100 years there powers of our government have grown with the realities and complexities of our civilization that did not exist when the constitution was founded. Just the same that the 2nd amendment allows your or I to own a gun since we potential members of a "well regulated militia" (although in 2008 in the most recent case, the Court upheld the right to bear arms even if you are not a member of a militia). So there is progression in terms of the meaning of certain amendments and clauses.

Congress and the Courts have allowed the Commerce Clause to expand in its meaning, with the advancements of our Union.

I have a hard time believing this will ever be permanently struck down and having Ken Cuccinelli (His best quote....."The longer you delay the commencement of sexual activity, you have healthier and happier kids and more successful kids.") being the face of opposition is laughable beyond reproach.

you dont just "not know" the exact percentage, you dont even know the ballpark. And you sure as hell dont know what it means in terms of actual dollars that fall to the tax payers.

So in your scenario, insurance companies continue to make money (they always do), 18-35 year olds get free medical care and taxpayers foot the bill. Sweet solution....

I think the argument can be made from either side really. Either you are forcing someone to buy something or you're forcing tax payers to pay for irresposible people. I think it boils down to whether you think it's more fair to punish people who do the right thing or punish those who do the wrong thing. Either way the money will get spent but it makes WAY more sense for people to have insurance since that leads to healthier people and less ER visits for primary care.

Well then what is fair? Is it fair to stick the tax payers with the medical bills? What is your solution? Somebody has to pay for the care people receive, right? I mean medical care costs money doesnt it? Who should have to pay?