Individual mandate unconstitutional

Originally posted by wittywonka
So you're still convinced that people will have the foresight, willingness, and ability necessary to enter the reformed system even without compulsion?

It's in their best interest, there are generous subsidies to encourage purchase of health insurance and any costs you accrue for treatment won't be covered if you don't get insurance before you accrue them. I'd wager the number of people who will refuse to buy insurance will be very small.

The problem we have now isn't because people don't want health insurance; it's because many workers simply can't afford it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's in their best interest, there are generous subsidies to encourage purchase of health insurance and any costs you accrue for treatment won't be covered if you don't get insurance before you accrue them. I'd wager the number of people who will refuse to buy insurance will be very small.

The problem we have now isn't because people don't want health insurance; it's because many workers simply can't afford it.

Will all the people who are out of work and the "tens of millions" who are homeless littering our streets with their card board boxes refuse to buy health insurance ?
I can't see them affording that. How could they ? What becomes of them?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Will all the people who are out of work and the "tens of millions" who are homeless littering our streets with their card board boxes refuse to buy health insurance ?
I can't see them affording that. How could they ? What becomes of them?

The unemployed and homeless are already eligible for Medicaid.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The unemployed and homeless are already eligible for Medicaid.

What defines an inadequate income ?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
What defines an inadequate income ?

You'd have to check the income requirements for Medicaid in the individual States (they have a certain amount of discretion under Federal law). Of course, the HRA will expand Medicaid coverage.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You'd have to check the income requirements for Medicaid in the individual States (they have a certain amount of discretion under Federal law). Of course, the HRA will expand Medicaid coverage.

Medicaid is available only to certain low-income individuals and families who fit into an eligibility group that is recognized by federal and state law. Medicaid does not pay money to you; instead, it sends payments directly to your health care providers. Depending on your state's rules, you may also be asked to pay a small part of the cost (co-payment) for some medical services.

Medicaid is a state administered program and each state sets its own guidelines regarding eligibility and services. Read more about your state Medicaid program.

Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though, certain requirements must be met. These may include your age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be sold for cash); and whether you are a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant. The rules for counting your income and resources vary from state to state and from group to group. There are special rules for those who live in nursing homes and for disabled children living at home.

Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups. Low income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds.

https://www.cms.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/

Originally posted by no1marauder
The unemployed and homeless are already eligible for Medicaid.

Not so

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Not so

By and large it is so, though it is true that in some states, people earning far less than they need to live comfortably are not eligible for Medicaid. Certainly not everyone who is ineligible for Medicaid can afford private health insurance. Therefore, uther's point that the individual mandate will affect people who cannot afford health insurance is accurate.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Not so

What's your point? Either you're bragging about the fact that Medicaid doesn't cover poor people who still can't afford health care insurance despite their income level, or you're making a valid point that Medicaid should be expanded.

Originally posted by wittywonka
What's your point? Either you're bragging about the fact that Medicaid doesn't cover poor people who still can't afford health care insurance despite their income level, or you're making a valid point that Medicaid should be expanded.

If you were following along you would see my point Mr. Wonka.

I was responding to no1marauders statement in which he said, "I'd wager the number of people who will refuse to buy insurance will be very small. "

I said what about the unemployed and the tens of millions of homeless people...?

no1marauder replied, "The unemployed and homeless are already eligible for Medicaid."

I said, " not so"

wittywonka says " whats your point ?"

Is is that hard to follow along Mr. Wonka ? Or, do you just like to jump into conversations not knowing the context ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's in their best interest, there are generous subsidies to encourage purchase of health insurance and any costs you accrue for treatment won't be covered if you don't get insurance before you accrue them. I'd wager the number of people who will refuse to buy insurance will be very small.

The problem we have now isn't because people don't want health insurance; it's because many workers simply can't afford it.

"The problem we have now isn't because people don't want health insurance; it's because many workers simply can't afford it."

Wrong. Some people make a conscious choice that health insurance is a lower priority than other things. These are mostly young, healthy, and somewhat foolish people.

For those who can't afford it and want it, the same thing applies. Many choose a lower priority than ought to be assigned to insurance. Others think that since they can't afford the gold plated plan that their union pals have they can't afford anything. Again wrong.

And like a lot of things that aren't affordable due to distortions in the market based on subsidies, more people would be able to afford, and costs would be lower without the already present single payor plans, medicare and medicaid.

Originally posted by sh76
By and large it is so, though it is true that in some states, people earning far less than they need to live comfortably are not eligible for Medicaid. Certainly not everyone who is ineligible for Medicaid can afford private health insurance. Therefore, uther's point that the individual mandate will affect people who cannot afford health insurance is accurate.

Forget all the pragmatic arguments, about who can afford what. It is simply inconceivable that in America we would be mandated to buy something, anything under threat of fines and imprisonment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
A pox on the poor!

No, not a pox at all since the insurance is so heavily subsidized for them. I'm surprised so many of you all-in conservatives are for allowing people to steal from the rest of us by not purchasing (heavily subsidized) insurance. With that attitude you might as well just ask for higher taxes and more transfers to the poor.

Unless it's just an anti-Obama thing.

Originally posted by wittywonka
What's your point? Either you're bragging about the fact that Medicaid doesn't cover poor people who still can't afford health care insurance despite their income level, or you're making a valid point that Medicaid should be expanded.

In marketing any item in a free market, to reach the mass market, the seller has to price his product or service to be affordable.

The presence of someone, anyone, in that market giving the same thing away, or forcing the producer to accept lower prices, distorts that market. If that someone were a corporate competitor, anti trust laws would kick in. But it's the government with a well intentioned program, so we accept it, even if the end result is just as bad or worse.

Originally posted by normbenign
The foundation of our system of government is trusting individuals to take care of themselves.

If an idea requires compulsion, can it be a good one?

Apparently not when it comes to financing their own medical service. Don't want to pay for minimal health insurance, and don't want to forego the HD TV to save for an emergency. The conservatives want to pay your ER bill.