Regarding the analogy that the individual mandate is like forcing everyone to buy food.

[Tony_FLADEM]

The government does require everyone to purchase food security. People pay taxes and this money goes to food stamp and nutrition programs. These programs are designed to help people who lose their ability to pay for their own food if they lose their job. The country has an interest in doing this because we don't want people doing such things as stealing from grocery stores if they need food and don't have the ability to pay.

Health insurance is similiar in that you are pre-paying for the health care you might need. There is an interest in not having people who can afford health insurance consuming health care without paying for it.

[Politicalboi]

1. I guess to some

Food costs equal health costs. I wonder how many of those who compare these two have seen a hospital bill over $300,000. That sure is a lot of Broccoli.

[Tony_FLADEM]

2. I know the costs are different but the concept is the same

I'm not crazy about the individual mandate but you can make a case for it within the context of other things the government does.

[Better Believe It]

3. If the health insurance industry takes over the supermarket chains we're really fucked!

Well, they might branch out and sell us mandated food insurance.

Wonder how that would work?

If there is a way to work that scam the insurance companies will figure it out!

[TheKentuckian]

4. Holler at me when we are paying taxes for our healthcare

[jeff47]

8. We already were before the ACA

Ya know, there's these programs called Medicare and Medicaid.....

[zipplewrath]

5. Someone really smart once said

Health care mandates were like solving homelessness by requiring everyone to buy a house.

Just wish I could remember who that smart guy was.

[Tony_FLADEM]

6. I know that someone on DU said that

We require everyone to pay taxes to fund housing programs which aim to help people who might become homeless. The individual mandate is different in that the health insurance companies get the money directly. If the money was going to a government agency first and then to a health insurance company it would be no different.

[zipplewrath]

7. Everyone DOESN'T pay taxes

Different people pay different amounts of taxes. Some pay very few federal taxes at all. This was going to require that some people, even those that didn't really think they could afford it, buy health insurance OR pay a tax, that they might also not be able to afford. Furthermore, they have to pay this, with no assurance that they will be able to afford the underlying health CARE. In fact, the insurance company isn't even required to ensure they receive health care if they can't afford it.

Now, how does that compare to people getting federal housing who may need it when they can't afford housing otherwise?

[Tony_FLADEM]

11. The penalty to not get insurance is limited to 2.5% of one's income and there are subsidies for

low income people to help purchase insurance. I'm not saying these situations are exactly the same, rather I don't think the mandate is as unprecedented and the constitutional issues are as profound as some are saying.

I don't think the mandate is necessary. Most people would get insurance if they had the opportunity.

[zipplewrath]

15. It is "unprecidented"

Alternately I don't think it is unconstitutional. For all of their pretzel logic, in the end one is basically getting a deduction for having a health insurance policy. It's a fairly "flat" tax, which makes it fairly regressive. The whole plan is regressive in that fashion, including a "cadillac tax" on policies that don't take into account the income or wealth of the person who has the policy. This thing is regressive in numberous additional ways because it is MOST burdensome on the LOWEST income brackets.

[enlightenment]

9. How about we cut out that for-profit middleman?

Why do we need insurance companies?

[Tony_FLADEM]

12. That's a separate issue. I support single payer health care at the state level

for example, what is occuring in Vermont.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Uh, no it is not separate. Other countries use a mandate, not one of them allows profit

from the sale of mandated products. So it is not 'either single payer or mandates for profit making products' at all. Not at all.

[Tony_FLADEM]

22. The subject of my post is the govenment compelling people to buy a good or service they might not

want or use. Not individual mandates versus single payer health care. Although both of these require the purchase of something though either a premium or tax.

[Uncle Joe]

32. Because the Congress needs bribe/lobby money and they're not near as likely to get so much if

all medical claims were processed through one or two non profit federal bureaucracies ie: universal single payer coverage or Medicare for all.

Sure it would dramatically simplify the process, actually be in tune with the Constitution and in turn cut the cost of medical care if this was centralized, uniform and non-profit instead of being in a labyrinth of forms and controls while being based on paying off blood money, but where's the fun in that?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Just so people get it....

"If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness."
Candidate Obama on the question of mandates for health care insurance.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Unfortunately that guy is long gone from the political scene... n/t

[zipplewrath]

16. I miss that guy

Wish he show up again.

[PoliticAverse]

17. You never know who'll show up during an election campaign. n/t

[zipplewrath]

19. Reunion concert

Yeah, but it'll be like all those aging boomer bands that get back together for reunion tours. Dim reflections of what was, often reminding us that it was never that good to begin with.

[treestar]

34. If you don't have the money for the house, the government gives it to you

Would be more accurate.

[girl gone mad]

10. Would you support mandated food insurance instead of food stamps?

To make this analogy more accurate, let's imagine a system where everyone is required to pay private for-profit third party "food insurers" a monthly premium. Then if they lose their income and/or become unable to afford food, these food insurers will give them coupons to purchase General Mills or Kraft processed foods at a discount.

Would you still support this type of system? Why or why not?

[Tony_FLADEM]

18. food stamps are a form of mandated food insurance. People pay for them with their tax dollars

whether they want to or not. I would need more information on how this system would work. For example, how much government regulation were involved. Most likely it would result in low income people not being able to afford it, so I would not support it.

I'm referring to the one issue that pertains to the government compelling people to purchase goods and services. The main difference with the individual mandate is that the money goes directly to insurance companies.

[joeglow3]

26. One is a contract with the government and one is with a private, extremely rich, corporation

See the difference.

[Native]

20. You can walk into an er, receive care (very expensive care), and then not pay for it

...leaving those who have purchased insurance to bear the higher premium rates that subsidize your free care. You CANNOT walk into a grocery store, demand food, and then leave without paying for it. Two entirely different scenarios. Take the time to listen to today's oral arguments. Very interesting and enlightening stuff!

Right now, we are all paying for everyone to receive care. The difference under the new law would simply be to make that process more efficient & equitable.

[hfojvt]

35. funny story about that

when I was uninsured, I walked into an ER and received fairly expensive care, for which I was billed $800, including some $500 for X-rays that I really did not need at all. I paid that all, $50 a month, except for the last $200 or so. For some strange reason when I owed about $200, they said I could pay off the whole thing if I just paid $100 now. I found that to be odd.

I also found it odd that they let me pay the $50 a month using my credit card. Why not insist that I pay the whole thing with my credit card and then make minimum payments to the credit card?

Then later I had insurance and I noticed something strange. For example, I had a hospital stay for which I was billed $13,900. I remember that amount because the hospital sent me that bill and for a while I thought maybe that was the remaining amount that I owed and that I was doomed forever to a life of severe poverty. Later it turned out that my insurance company had paid $12,400 and that I only owed $400.

Yet, because I had insurance I ended up paying $1,100 LESS than what I was billed. If I had been uninsured, I would have been on the hook for the whole $13,900.

Later I had arthroscopic knee surgery and I was billed $4,000 or so. Of which the insurance company paid about $1200 and I paid nothing.

My insurance company also regularly bills my dentist less than he bills me. Back when I had no dental insurance, I paid the full amount.

So tell me again how the uninsured are being subsidized by the insured, because it looks to me like the insured are getting the discounts.

I also know a guy with no dental insurance who has been in pain for months because of his teeth, some of which he tried to pull on his own. He has not worked since mid December, as far as I know, so he cannot afford food and rent, much less health insurance, which may or may not even include dental.

[Native]

37. You're talking about a different situation.

If you had gone into the ER and been admitted and run up a bill of $13,900 and had no insurance and never bothered to pay the bill (as many uninsured people do), who do you think eats the bill? Remember the old saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch? The cost to the hospital to provide that service is passed on in higher costs to everyone else, and higher premiums.

Even though insurance companies negotiate discounted rates (what you perceive to be lower costs than what individuals without insurance are charged), an individual can also negotiate - sometimes getting the cost down below what some insurance companies are billed. Most people don't realize this though, and they don't try to negotiate. I know people who've negotiated hospital stays down to 30% of the original amount billed.

60% of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs - even by people with insurance. Anything that can be done to make the system more equitable and more efficient will bring about cost savings that everyone will enjoy.

Unless you've worked in health care (I have) and in the insurance industry (I have), it's difficult to understand how it all goes down.

[applegrove]

23. Also too, if you don't buy food for your kids you get your kids taken away from you.

[SATIRical]

24. Not true

Some people are self-sufficient and grow pretty much all food they consume.

Theoretically, people do not have to buy any food.

[SATIRical]

25. Bad analogy

First, those who have a nest egg with no income may not pay taxes which contribute to food stamps.

Second, folks may grow/produce their own food so they do not need to buy food.

[Tony_FLADEM]

31. Some don't pay income tax but they pay other taxes

Some grow their own food but still need to rely on grocery stores. For example, most people don't own a cow and would need to buy milk in a commercial transaction.

[SATIRical]

36. But some people do know people who own a cow

and get their milk through barter.

Like my parents, for example.

And yes, those folks may pay other taxes, but not taxes that contribute to food stamps. For example, property tax does not.

My point is that people can avoid paying toward food stamps without a fine.

[Romulox]

27. Taxes aren't the same thing as forced private purchases.

Think about it--why did the insurance industry fight so hard to be cut in to the ACA? Because they are multinational for profit corporations.

[Tony_FLADEM]

28. The only difference is that the money goes directly to the insurance companies

If we had single payer, the money would go to the government and then to private vendors of health care.

[Tony_FLADEM]

29. There isn't as much difference as you might think

When you give the money to the government, it goes to vendors in the private sector. This is compelling everyone to give money to private businesses.

[AngryAmish]

30. How does this intersect with the Third Amendment analysis?

[Tony_FLADEM]

33. I'm sorry. I'm not a legal expert.

[hughee99]

38. Regarding the analogy that buying something from a private company

is comparable to paying taxes, it's not the same. It's not "kind of" the same or "sort of" the same. The federal government can tax you, wipe their ass with the money, and flush it down the toilet or set it on fire. I'm not sure they have the authority to FORCE you to buy something from a private company even if you need it to save your life.