Affordable Care Act Supreme Court Hearings this week

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by PaulS

It would be interesting to hear Thomas' questions.

If he had any.

As I had started this, it's going to be very devisive in the decision.

I could almost see someone challenging SS contributions if they throw ACA out as being unconstitutional.

These decisions well either send us down the road of socialism or further breakdown what is perceived as American prosperity.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by striperman36

I could almost see someone challenging SS contributions if they throw ACA out as being unconstitutional.

Or things like Auto insurance... I'm a good driver, I think I'll go without....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Or things like Auto insurance... I'm a good driver, I think I'll go without....

You aren't obligated to own a car. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. If people don't like it, there's always a bicycle.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You aren't obligated to own a car. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. If people don't like it, there's always a bicycle.

The tax payers are obligated to foot the bill of your medical costs if you are uninsured and get hurt.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The tax payers are obligated to foot the bill of your medical costs if you are uninsured and get hurt.

are they?

I think it was Justice Breyer that made this broad suggestion yesterday as well, but I'm not sure that it is true...

I know a few people that were either injured or became quite ill needing cance treatments etc while uninsured....and the "tax payer" did not pay for their medical costs, most were covered/treated by help from charitable trusts through the hospitals, payment arrangements worked out through the various providers and on...I don't think that hospitals that admit patients or treat them in the emergency room can simply bill the taxpayer for services not paid by the uninsured....to suggest that anyone that needs medical services and can't pay for them at that time either out of pocket or through some form of insurance instantly places a financial burden on "the taxpayers" is...... "a stretch"

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The tax payers are obligated to foot the bill of your medical costs if you are uninsured and get hurt.

Originally Posted by scottw

are they?

I don't think that hospitals that admit patients or treat them in the emergency room can simply bill the taxpayer for services not paid by the uninsured....to suggest that anyone that needs medical services and can't pay for them at that time either out of pocket or through some form of insurance instantly places a financial burden on "the taxpayers" is...... "a stretch"

In a few states - like NY, they have a surcharge on claims to compensate hospitals for "uncompensated care". I think it is either a per monthly head count or a % of paid claims. The insurance company pays. It is built into the rate the insured pays.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

In a few states - like NY, they have a surcharge on claims to compensate hospitals for "uncompensated care". I think it is either a per monthly head count or a % of paid claims. The insurance company pays. It is built into the rate the insured pays.

"The insurance company pays."

I don't think that's true. If the patient is uninsured, how does the hospital know which insurance company to bill? You're saying that surcharge is passed on to all insurance carriers? Maybe. Anyone know for sure?

I'm guessing that hospitals write off a ton of uncollected (and never to be collected) medical bills from folks who can't pay.

This problem isn't getting solved no matter what happens. My objection ha snothing to do with paying for others, my objection is based on the unconstitutionality of it, IMHO of course...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

In a few states - like NY, they have a surcharge on claims to compensate hospitals for "uncompensated care". I think it is either a per monthly head count or a % of paid claims. The insurance company pays. It is built into the rate the insured pays.

In all cases, the bill is somehow paid. If the hospital covers it, it is passed on to everyone in their hospital bills. If the hospital uses the losses as a write-off- the tax revenues are made up somewhere else (or put on the credit card of our kids), if the insurance companies pay a surcharge- it affects our insurance rates.

In any case, I do think the constitutionality of the health care law treads a thin line, but so does passing off the cost of the uninsured to everyone else and that is established by prior practice for decades.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You aren't obligated to own a car. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. If people don't like it, there's always a bicycle.

auto insurance is state mandated, not federally.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

auto insurance is state mandated, not federally.

Thats my fault for a bad example. I know it is state mandated and macintosh apples to green apples.
I think it is mandated in 49 of 50 states.

The point is, it is still a mandated purchase, intended to protect you AND others from your actions (or an accident).

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The point is, it is still a mandated purchase, intended to protect you AND others from your actions (or an accident).

Any my point was that it's a conditionally mandated purchase. If someone doesn't agree with paying for auto insurance or cannot afford it, they can ride a bike.

On the other hand, the ACA is an mandated purchase for being a living, breathing human being. If you disagree with ACA or cannot afford it, tough crap - pay up anyway.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

cannot afford it, tough crap - pay up anyway.

Actually, that isn't true. There is assistance to pay for it if you can't afford it. The alternative is the current system, where if you can't pay for it, you go in uninsured and everyone pays for it anyway. If you don't want to pay for it, you get hurt and everyone else pays for it. How is that a better system?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Thats my fault for a bad example. I know it is state mandated and macintosh apples to green apples.
I think it is mandated in 49 of 50 states.

The point is, it is still a mandated purchase, intended to protect you AND others from your actions (or an accident).

Should that 50th state be required to mandate it because the other 49 have? And if the Federal Gvt. can mandate health care for all of us why shouldn't it mandate auto insurance, or anything else for that that matter, for all of us? If the Federal Gvt need not be limited to its Constitutionally limited powers to mandate, but can mandate anything, are the states even necessary? Would it not be better to eliminate the mish-mash of 50 different governments, and all of us then be gathered under the mandate of one central government? Are the states necessary? Are they merely obstacles to good, uniform government?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Or things like Auto insurance... I'm a good driver, I think I'll go without....

maybe I missed something...when did the Federal Government start mandating auto insurance?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by striperman36

If he had any.


I could almost see someone challenging SS contributions if they throw ACA out as being unconstitutional.

Not even close. Social security contributions are a "tax" levied by the federal government, and the constitution clearly says the federal government has the authority to collect taxes. If it's explicitly in the constitution, it cannot be considered unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is completely different. It's requiring individuals to eneter into a contract with a private company. If the feds can do that, why can't they make you buy a computer from Apple? Why can't they make you buy an electric car?

I hapen to like the individual mandate on the moral grounds that healthy people should help pay the cost of people who get sick through no fault of their own. However, I don't like Obama's willingnes to ignore the constitution when it suits him. If enough people want the federal government to have the authority to force us to buy things from a private company, we have mechanisms to amend the constitution to reflect that. Until then, the individual mandate seems unconstitutional to me.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by striperman36

These decisions well either send us down the road of socialism or further breakdown what is perceived as American prosperity.

That is a stretch, but it certainly should raise the question, if you can't be required to have insurance, then shouldn't a hospital be able to reject the uninsured? Actually, I am not sure if the quote above is an either/or...

If it isn't unconstitutional to make taxpayers and insurance holders pay for others health care, how can it be unconstitutional to require people to be insured?

I bet most who are opposed to this already have health care. They may say they are opposed because of the government mandate for a person to have insurance is a government invasion. I don't believe that is why they oppose it. My gut feeling is the real issue for most them is they don't want to have to pay for the insurance of all the people who will be required to get insurance. Irony is, they already do pay for it. Beech is complicated.