Off-Topic

I dont think its the same at all

- Most choose to buy insurance even when its not required and most would not choose to pay taxes if they were not required
- Insurance directly benefits the insured, taxes are an indirect benefit

bottom line is that these are pretty big differences.

There are two independent issues here - what is the best way to solve the problem, and whether the solution one proposes is one that Congress has the constitutional power to implement. It's not an either-or thing, like one matters more than the other. You can have the best policy idea in the world, but if Congress doesn't have the power to do it, then it's just an academic debate. Just look at the Morrison case - very few people thought that the Violence Against Women Act was a bad idea on policy grounds, but the Act was overturned by the Supreme Court because it did not fall within Congress' enumerated powers. So, yeah, it's important to have the policy debate, but whether it's constitutional or not is an independent concern. And in these lawsuits, it's the only relevant concern.

you're talking at a much more specific policy level than I am. I'm trying to take a step back from all of the specifics and focus on the core issue at hand, which is that somebodys gotta pay for the medical treatment of the uninsured and I want that somebody to be the individual instead of the taxpayer. The specifics around how to best make that happen are certainly up for debate....

What is the actual law on what hospitals have to do without asking for proof of ability to pay? I mean, clearly they don't have to attend to every need of every citizen - i.e. you can't get free cancer drugs from the hospital if you can't afford them. Is it something like they just have to get the patient to a "stable" condition? I'm just trying to get an accurate picture of what "taxpayers" are on the hook for in relation to the uninsured. Those defending Obamacare are making it sound like taxpayers are footing the bill for comprehensive medical care for these people. I think that's clearly not right, but I don't know where the line is between what kinds of medical treatment uninsured people are entitled to under the law and what they're not entitled to.

The trouble I have with this is the following - if the "uninsured" is uninsured because he is too poor to buy insurance, he's probably going to be eligible for Medicaid or eligible for significant subsidies under ObamaCare, in which case the "taxpayer" is picking up the bill anyways (neal referred to this earlier). If the "uninsured" is uninsured not because he can't afford buy insurance, but because he chooses not to, then he should be able to cover his medical bills out of pocket in the case of illness, in which case the taxpayer is not on the hook. Who are the "individuals" that are not paying for treatment now that are being forced to pay under ObamaCare?

I think you misunderstand the reality of the expenses. A young healthy person can get medical insurance for what 100 bucks a month? 150? maybe even less. A bill that many "can" afford to pay. But if he gets really sick or into a bad accident and has to spend a week in the ER it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. At that point, the bill is too much for him and it falls on taxpayers to pay it. Thats the problem at hand.

Kaiser used a real world example about his dad earlier in this thread.....

I just meant that's what you get called by some if you are against Obama care.

Please, for the love of God, don't use car insurance as your proof here.

Even ignoring the other logical fallacies, that's still state government, not federal.

Okay, I'm going to seriously respond to somebody who thinks "Living Constitution" theory reminds them of a Disney movie based on a ride at Disney World?

So the only time our federal government does anything is if there is an amendment to do so?

Also, as much as auto insurance is mandated by individual states, most state require motorists to have car insurance. Some states are stricter then others for what is required. Nobody screams about this, or their screams fall on deaf ears.

I fundamentally would be opposed to this for the following reasons. There are too many states who would refuse to enact mandatory health insurance. Why? Because they are literally dumb and uneducated. These same state legislatures are so backwards they want creationism to be taught in the classroom and our country will be a bunch split between educated people in the northeast (those with reputable college degrees and understandings that the world does not revolve around a religious fable) and those who think the world was created in 7 days and a 300 year old man lived inside of a whale. If you literally believe that the world was created in 7 days then your opinion does not count in anything that affects others. Period. End of story.

So, yes, I know our founders (community organizers, elitists) would laugh at these f'ing rednecks and half-ass law school grads like Ken Cuccinelli who are backwards to common sense on 75% of real issues.

States require auto insurance for motorists. Not everyone. Any citizen is free to choose not to buy auto insurance.

Even if someone grants that forcing the public to buy health insurance is in the country's best interest (and I disagree with that wholeheartedly), if it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional. Obviously, that's open to interpretation and will come through the courts in the upcoming months/years. However, I'm sure you see the myriad problems in allowing people to legislate around the constitution for the "good of the country." If the Constitution is standing in the way of legitimate progress, then the mechanism exists to amend it. No one on this thread is saying that the Constitution has to expressly permit something for a law to be passed.

I think it's awesome that because there are a handful of legislators in Kansas that want only 7-day creationism to be taught, we should refuse to allow states generally to make their own decisions about health care.

To clarify...the 250K was a bill for 19 days in the hospital, the surgeries, the helicopter and the months of rehab he's been doing from home with in-home nurses. If his stroke would have been serious (it really didn't affect him very much thank Scott) then the hospital stay would have been much longer and he would have had to have brain surgery and the fee would have been WAY over 500k....probably close to a million.

To clarify more....his accident was the result of a tree falling on his car during a crazy summer storm while he was stopped in traffic. I bring this up to show that this stuff can happen to anybody and I'm pretty sure we can't mandate trees to check for insurance cards prior to pinning them in the car while breaking their necks.

IMO...and I know it's my opinion...it just makes more sense that everyone have insurance. Take away for a minute that uninsured people f*ck up my taxes....doesn't it just make sense that a freak accident can't cause a family to lose everything in a heartbeat?....while battling something like rehab?

I am a nice guy.