Why would you assume that Obamacare will not cost you money?

Can't see how it won't.

I am a bit tired of hearing the "brocoli" argument as in "what's next - will the govt tell us to buy brocoli." Quite a stretch that misses the obvious difference.

 

A person who doesn't have health insurance COSTS ME MONEY. They're going to get healthcare at some point and when they do and can't pay it it's ME that's paying it.

 

When someone can somehow equate that to being forced to buy brocoli I'll buy the lame question.

 

So those that have no health care now really have health care then??? They just don't pay for it.

I am a bit tired of hearing the "brocoli" argument as in "what's next - will the govt tell us to buy brocoli." Quite a stretch that misses the obvious difference.

 

A person who doesn't have health insurance COSTS ME MONEY. They're going to get healthcare at some point and when they do and can't pay it it's ME that's paying it.

 

When someone can somehow equate that to being forced to buy brocoli I'll buy the lame question.

 

 

Given the impact of this tyrannical law this may fit.

 

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Lower Cost Deserve Neither"

 

Apolgies to Ben Franklin...

I am a bit tired of hearing the "brocoli" argument as in "what's next - will the govt tell us to buy brocoli." Quite a stretch that misses the obvious difference.

 

A person who doesn't have health insurance COSTS ME MONEY. They're going to get healthcare at some point and when they do and can't pay it it's ME that's paying it.

 

When someone can somehow equate that to being forced to buy brocoli I'll buy the lame question.

 

You raise some interesting points that raise issues that need to be examined.

 

How much do you currently pay for those without insurance to have health care? Rather than requiring all to have insurance or face a penalty/tax, should steps be taken to make sure those without insurance do not cost you money (ie, deny them with care)? Or is this part of the whole "it takes a village" kind of thing and that we as a society have an obligation to make sure that everyone in the US has healthcare? If so, why has healthcare for all, regardless of whether they can pay for it, now become such a fundamental right, when it wasn't a 100 years ago?

 

Would you agree with the premise that Obamacare is a thinly disguised form of nationalized, govt provided healthcare (instead of the federal govt providing health care for all and funding such through tax dollars, Obamacare requires all to have insurance at their out of pocket cost or pay a penalty/tax)?

 

Where would you draw the line as to what things the federal govt should have the ability to force its citizens to do/acquire? In other words, how far can the federal govt go in the interest of doing what is best for all at the expense of personal liberty? The federal govt has already forced people to have a retirement plan; has forced people to have an unemployment benefits plan; and has now forced people to have a healthcare plan. Are you not at all worried about the slippery slope?

 

How does the cost you are currently incurring to cover those without health insurance compare with the cost you will pay, both in increased premiums and through your raxes, to cover the cost of Obamacare?

 

For the record, I have to admit that there are somethings in Obama Care that make sense to me (like pre-existing condition coverage). And further for the record, I think Obama Care will be ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court because I look at ObamaCare as just another tax on the people to provide and pay for nationalized health insurance, with a taxpayer being exempt from such tax if they have their own private insurance coverage. And as we all too well know, the federal govt has the ability to tax under the Constitution.

You're right woodsrider, people are very principled and money has no influence in the world. I'm sorry I didn't agree with his premise as defensive as he was but that goes against basic human nature.

 

Heck yes I was defensive; you in effect called me an unprincipled liar. Perhaps providing insight into both of our souls, you evidently look at basic human nature as evil, bad and totally self-interested. I don't. Everyday of our lives we all are given numerous opportunities to be unprincipled, bad, evil and to take advantage of others. Don't know about you, but I don't do so.

I am a bit tired of hearing the "brocoli" argument as in "what's next - will the govt tell us to buy brocoli." Quite a stretch that misses the obvious difference.

 

A person who doesn't have health insurance COSTS ME MONEY. They're going to get healthcare at some point and when they do and can't pay it it's ME that's paying it.

 

When someone can somehow equate that to being forced to buy brocoli I'll buy the lame question.

It has nothing to do with what it is costing you now. It's the fact that the Fed government does not have the power to force you to buy something. Obamacare does just that. If you want to discuss what it costs you then someone smoking costs you money. Someone that doesn't eat healthy costs you money. Someone that is obese costs you money. The way the insurance system is set up costs you money.

Why would you assume that Obamacare will not cost you money?

 

The point of my argument is that at some point every one is going to need health care services. Everyone isn't going to need broccoli.

 

Agree or disagree on the commerce clause. Agree or disagree on if healthcare is a right. Agree or disagree on the individual mandate. I'm all for the discussion.

 

Just don't bring the "broccoli" argument into it.

I am a bit tired of hearing the "brocoli" argument as in "what's next - will the govt tell us to buy brocoli." Quite a stretch that misses the obvious difference.

 

A person who doesn't have health insurance COSTS ME MONEY. They're going to get healthcare at some point and when they do and can't pay it it's ME that's paying it.

 

When someone can somehow equate that to being forced to buy brocoli I'll buy the lame question.

 

When insurance companies are forced to accept everyone it's going to cost you a lot more than those people currently cost you. I agree with the "brocoli" argument.

You raise some interesting points that raise issues that need to be examined.

 

How much do you currently pay for those without insurance to have health care? Rather than requiring all to have insurance or face a penalty/tax, should steps be taken to make sure those without insurance do not cost you money (ie, deny them with care)? Or is this part of the whole "it takes a village" kind of thing and that we as a society have an obligation to make sure that everyone in the US has healthcare? If so, why has healthcare for all, regardless of whether they can pay for it, now become such a fundamental right, when it wasn't a 100 years ago?

 

Would you agree with the premise that Obamacare is a thinly disguised form of nationalized, govt provided healthcare (instead of the federal govt providing health care for all and funding such through tax dollars, Obamacare requires all to have insurance at their out of pocket cost or pay a penalty/tax)?

 

Where would you draw the line as to what things the federal govt should have the ability to force its citizens to do/acquire? In other words, how far can the federal govt go in the interest of doing what is best for all at the expense of personal liberty? The federal govt has already forced people to have a retirement plan; has forced people to have an unemployment benefits plan; and has now forced people to have a healthcare plan. Are you not at all worried about the slippery slope?

 

How does the cost you are currently incurring to cover those without health insurance compare with the cost you will pay, both in increased premiums and through your raxes, to cover the cost of Obamacare?

 

For the record, I have to admit that there are somethings in Obama Care that make sense to me (like pre-existing condition coverage). And further for the record, I think Obama Care will be ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court because I look at ObamaCare as just another tax on the people to provide and pay for nationalized health insurance, with a taxpayer being exempt from such tax if they have their own private insurance coverage. And as we all too well know, the federal govt has the ability to tax under the Constitution.

 

All valid questions and questions that need to be considered. The "broccoli" argument is still invalid and lame which was the sole point of my post.

 

You cannot equate broccoli with $43B in unpaid healthcare bills plus the resulting increase in our premiums.

 

Broccoli consumption cannot be quantified . Unpaid healthcare bills can and has. THAT is why the commerce clause is being debated and it's why the broccoli argument is a red herring.

Edited March 28, 201214 yr by Clyde

When insurance companies are forced to accept everyone it's going to cost you a lot more than those people currently cost you. I agree with the "brocoli" argument.

 

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

 

I work for an Insurance company. I would expect your premium to at least double if every plan is guaranteed issue (On the individual market).

I work for an Insurance company. I would expect your premium to at least double if every plan is guaranteed issue.

 

Your insurance company raises my rates today already because of the uninsured. PLUS my taxes then pay the bill for the actual insureds bill.

Your insurance company raises my rates today already because of the uninsured. PLUS my taxes then pay the bill for the actual insureds bill.

 

There is a number of different reasons rates go up and yes that is one but a small part of it. How do you know it's my company? If people are forced to buy insurance you will see a huge increase in the number of Dr visits. If you have to pay for something you might as well use it right? Not to mention the cost that a sick person (I'm not talking about colds) has on an insurance company that they will be forced to take. From day one that company has zero chance to make a profit on a good amount of the "new" customers it will be bringing in so someone will be making up the difference. That would be me and you.

 

 

I'm not going to sit here and defend insurance companies all day. Point being healthcare reform needs to happen and this isn't they way to get it done.

There is a number of different reasons rates go up and yes that is one but a small part of it. How do you know it's my company? If people are forced to buy insurance you will see a huge increase in the number of Dr visits. If you have to pay for something you might as well use it right? Not to mention the cost that a sick person (I'm not talking about colds) has on an insurance company that they will be forced to take. From day one that company has zero chance to make a profit on a good amount of the "new" customers it will be bringing in so someone will be making up the difference. That would be me and you.

 

 

I'm not going to sit here and defend insurance companies all day. Point being healthcare reform needs to happen and this isn't they way to get it done.

 

You're discounting the impact of total healthcare costs of people getting preventive care because they now have insurance vs waiting until it's severe and they show up in the emergency room.

For the record, I have no firm grasp on this law. Others in here seem to which I find interesting.

 

We can't get experts to agree on its impact yet we BGPers seem to be expressing certitudes.

 

My point in jumping in was not to say it's great or it's the devil but, rather, to simply comment on the absurdity of the "broccoli" argument.