Healthcare law

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

“The decision on Obamacare goes well beyond health care,” Mrs. Bachmann, a Republican and a vocal opponent of the law, wrote in an e-mail. It “will determine whether or not the court believes the government has a right to mandate that Americans buy a product or service, a direct impact on our freedom and liberty.”

Yes, very fine words, there is only one problem - Americans have already purchased this "product or service". And they keep on consuming it every day. The real question is - who is going to pay for it? Does Federal government have a right to make you pay for something you consume? Or do you have a right to use the service and then make taxpayers and insured folks flip the bill?

'Cause you really have to be naive to think that people who have no insurance "do not consume product or service" in the form of medical care. Of course they do! They show up at the emergency room and get treatment. Perhaps not the best treatment, but they do receive it. And more often than not it is so late in the process that the treatment ends up being a lot more expensive than it would be, should preventive care been done in time. But they wait till the problem is so severe it becomes life threatening, and they take enough time to spread it, if it is contagious, and then they go and get treatment. It is soooo very unconstitutional to make them pay! How very "free market" of representative Buchmann.

I have another suggestion - lets be consistent here - why should we restrict freedom of thieves and robbers to rob and steal? This is very unconstitutional! They have a right to knock you on the head and clean up your pockets in the night! How can the government tell them what to do and how to behave, and then lock them up in a cell if they do not obey? What a dreadful intrusion on life of free citizens!

Or, perhaps, if we do not enjoy been robbed and stolen from, we should just lynch these people on the spot, and not let government with its dreadful regulation interfere with our freedoms! Think how much taxpayer money spent on courts and policing could be saved! Talking about balanced budget! Amen to Liberty.

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Oh hooray, another hyperbolic debate over how the court should rule on something for which the opinion is already written. Obviously everyone opposed to this particular action must be opposed to all government action, because this action is so clearly the bestest idea that's ever been.

Yawn.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Why am I forced to purchase auto insurance? Seems like there's no problems trampling my Constitutional rights when it comes to that.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Not the federal government; no requirement to own a car.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

What section of the Constitution covers this?

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

Yes, owning a car is a choice; getting sick, unfortunately, is not. When people will become capable not getting sick at will, then they will be entitled to freedom of not having health insurance. Until then someone has to pay, and if its not them, its us.

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

"Why am I forced to purchase auto insurance?"

California lets you use the roads if you do so. And you can take public transport and skip the involvement.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

You're arguing in favor of State-sanctioned tyranny? Color me shocked.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

they're not fine words; she's wrong.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

That's a given, the question I'm left with is why is she still relevant?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

that, I got no answer for.

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

'Cause those eyes of hers just can't help but suck you right in.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Your argument is poorly thought out and filled with fallacies.

You should feel bad.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Was that... one of those hyper-intelligent refutations? Does it make you feel particularly good? ;-)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Just pointing out the obvious. Not altogether different than the first reply.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Man, that was deep, man.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You should feel badly.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Oh thank you great American government for protecting us from health care. God bless America and it's freedom cancer!

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Your freedom cancer has been determined to be a pre-existing condition and hence, renders you ineligible for treatment.

Can we take your liver now?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I'm always amused when people's wills are held hostage to their freedoms.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Hush you, with your facts and logics!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You sincerely expect someone who was elected via gerrymandering and whose political career is purely the appeal to the basest, most disgusting elements of the political sphere to have any depth or contributions as a political leader?

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

No, of course not. But it is a common sentiment.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

this is why the supreme court is deciding the case.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Republicans don't seem to like the Republican idea of private insurance mandates. Likely for the simple reason that they are against anything Obama is for, even when it comes to their own ideas.

Given there is no possibility that we will put people without insurance out on the street to die in the gutter, the result of not having a private insurance mandate is inevitable: Rising prices leading to a single payer, medicare for all policy. Nice going republitards(*), that's what liberals wanted to do in the first place and you're proving them right.

(*)Not all Republicans

[ja-va.livejournal.com]

This is the irony of it - republicans are against free market based solution to the problem, which is the only way to eliminate free riders and make healthcare more affordable for everybody. Romney himself did the same thing in Massachusetts, because it really is the only way to get rid of adverse selection, when the sick are the ones to get insurance and the healthy prefer to gamble and take a chance.