Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
This is a black and white issue. Your quote included the phrase "force to purchase" - that's not what this is.
|
Fine.
A law that FINES you if you don't have insurance. Which in effect will force a lot of people to get health insurance.
Quote:
The government requires a hospital to treat an uninsured patients.
The paying customers reimburse the hospital for these uninsured patients.
Some of the uninsured patients have the money but are gaming the system.
|
Uhhh, the way I read it is that emergency care will not be refused to anyone. Even if they can't pay.
But yeah, I get what you mean.
Quote:
Really, the government is mandating that the large risk-averse population subsidize the poor, alien and the risky. This bill efforts to take "and the risky" out of the subsidized group.
I do agree with the constitutional argument, but the case to be made is that it is unconstitutional for the system force patients to pay for care other than their own - one I support in the abstract but oppose in reality.
|
Hey I would tend to agree. Surprise, surprise.
But again, I'm not talking about that side of the argument here.
If the federal government would enact legislation that would require all states to ensure that all its citizens are covered by health care, and Congress would pass that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Instead we're all wondering how the federal government can create a law that fines people for not doing something. Rightly or wrongly.