Broccoli? Really? That's the best analogy our "media" can come up with?

[SoCalDem]

"....what's next?...govt requiring you to buy broccoli??...blah-blah-blah....just like forcing us to buy insurance..blah-blah-blah.."..

rinse repeat..change channel...blah blah blah..

No it's NOT like mandating that we buy broccoli or join a gym or any other lame analogy.

When a 20 year old invincible person crashes a motorbike/jet ski/car/snowboard/etc and sustains a life-threatening injury, heaven and earth will be moved to save them, even though they are unconscious

When a newborn arrives prematurely or with serious medical needs, heaven and earth will be moved to save them

When a 50 year old man (or woman) collapses at a mall, they will be taken to a hospital, and heaven and earth will be moved to save them.

It's what happens NEXT, that is what's at issue here. and it's NOT broccoli.

It's potential financial ruin/increased premium/medical care costs that's the crux of the issue.

In a civilized society (macro), the plan is for EVERYONE to have coverage, paid for via taxes paid. Patients get treated, and they go back to their normal lives, or are entered into continuing care as needed. they are not flooded with a bankrupting flurry of bills and or threats about legal prosecution, loss of home, etc.

In OUR society (micro), uninsured people ARE treated, but when released they are inundated with bills, threats and are often financially ruined. If they are uninsured, their unpaid costs are borne by hospitals, doctors and ultimately the rest of us, via ever-escalating costs.

Obamacare (they are embracing the moniker these days) is not the yummy "broccoli-crown".. At this point it is chopped broccoli (mostly stems)..but it is something..and something MORE than most had before.

The argument really is closer to the car insurance analogy, even though one can escape the need for car insurance by not ever driving.. The difference here is that EVERYONE uses or WILL USE healthcare, or a family member will.

It would be easier/cheaper to have a single payer system, but that is not "on the table", so we have to address what we can address.

Something is better than nothing, and once something is in place and operating, we can assess further.

It's NOT broccoli.

It's just life & death.

It's just solvency and health .

Like an old-timey cartoon burglar gives his mark a choice, so does our current system... "Your money or your life".

Can't have both.

Pass the broccoli

[onehandle]

1. We've had broccoli in our salads for the last two nights.

I like broccoli.

And Universal Healthcare.

Those who deny our children healthcare should have 'Do Not Medicate and Do Not Resuscitate, Unless I Promise To Pay 100% of My Hospital Bill. See My Ass For The Promise To Pay Tattoo.' tattooed on their foreheads.

[orwell]

2. It's the American way.

Privatize the benefit...everyone must be treated in an emergency.

Externalize the cost...shift the cost of the uninsured to the rest of the population.

It is fine to mandate - emergency triage, but is an heresy to mandate the costs of such treatment.

Welcome to the RepubliCon bizzaro world.

When we as a society insist that all who are uninsured must be allowed to die on the spot, they can do whatever they want with insurance.

Pro-Life indeed...

[DefenseLawyer]

3. I understand from a business standpoint why the mandate is a necessary part of a flawed plan

but there is a fundamental question about forcing people to patronize a private business that can't be dismissed out of hand. There are a handful of insurance providers. The costs of entering that market means that there will never be more than a handful of providers. In such situations, be it gasoline or airplane tickets or lots of other things, there is very little "competition" and it is fairly simple for these few to collude and take a healthy chunk of the big pie rather than fight one another for a bigger piece of a smaller pie. As a result the consumer is at their mercy by and large and will have to pay a ransom to get coverage. If the government gets involved at that point and requires people to pay the ransom, with no alternative, seems very problematic to me. Politically, I'd like to see the law succeed, but I have found it to be flawed from the beginning so I can't completely dismiss the arguments against the mandate.

[savalez]

4. Justice Scalia brought up broccoli too.

"He probed what the limits are if government can force people to purchase a good, and even brought up the hypothetical "broccoli" mandate that conservatives often invoke."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/antonin-scalia-offers-hint-on-his-mandate-decision

I guess he listens to the media after all.

[Cleita]

7. Actually, it was his remark the media picked up on.

They didn't make it up out of thin air.

[savalez]

8. Really? Because the article states

that broccoli is part of the talking points against the mandate.

"and even brought up the hypothetical "broccoli" mandate that conservatives often invoke."

Was Scalia repeating what he himself said in the past?

[Cleita]

10. Heard it on one of the talk shows last night that

this is where it originated. So who is right?

[SoCalDem]

11. I've heard several "news" people chuckle as they repeat it

[KurtNYC]

5. they just say what they are told to say

But let's flesh out the analogy a little:

current healthcare system = brussels sprouts cooked wrong , mushy, a little stinky and expensive
Obamacare = broccoli with a side of Ranch dressing

I'll go with the broccoli.

[girl gone mad]

6. You're making an argument for providing health care..

not an argument for forcing people to buy insurance.

Many people will still up in the same predicament you outline with insurance, even under the ACA.

[pansypoo53219]

9. no. it's about saving money.

make it about SAVING MONEY.