Comments on: Universal Health Care

By: Mike w.

Mike w. — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:09:40 +0000

Laughing dog is right. Health insurance is far higher in those states where it is highly regulated. NJ is a perfect example.

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:05:14 +0000

Once the death rates through high cost and inefficiencies spiral out of control it won’t really matter.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:30:20 +0000

The constitution only limits congress’ powers power to tax such that “direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union.” If Congress wants to prescribe a different income tax rates to people who fail to carry health insurance, I don’t see that the constitution limits that. It’s an exercise of Congress’ taxing power.

Does that make it good public policy? I don’t think so. But not all ideas which are bad are unconstitutional.

By: Laughingdog

Laughingdog — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:00:09 +0000

That doesn’t sound even remotely Constitutional to me. It’s one thing to give tax breaks to encourage certain behavior (e.g. allowing you to deduct your health care premiums). It’s another thing to charge you a tax for not having health coverage. At that point, it’s just a fine.

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the way health care is that government has intruded into it so much already. The various states have meddled so much into what the companies have to cover, that they have to charge a ridiculous amount of money to pay for it. A lot more people could get coverage if they could get policies that only cover likely risks and/or easily treated risks(e.g. broken bones, acerations, etc.). But even if they could get that, too many people seem to think that EVERY possible medical procedure should be covered.

Basically, there are far too many things that people don’t need to have that are covered. Birth control pills would be the first thing that comes to mind. Very few women actually need birth control pills. Those that do, don’t generally need them for the birth control aspect. Since you can easily avoid getting pregnant by just not having sex, I don’t see why everyone else needs to pay more in health insurance costs to subsidize that.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:59:16 +0000

Well, I think it’s a legitimate debate as to how far the federal government can use its powers to tax and spend to accomplish things that are outside of its scope of power. But generally, the courts have found that Congress is allowed to use its taxing and spending powers pretty broadly.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:51:51 +0000

“Insurers could no longer deny coverage to people who had been sick.”

Sounds like a great idea, that way I don’t have waste money on insurance until I get sick. (/sarcasm/)

By: RockinR

RockinR — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:45:30 +0000

I am not sure how this can be constitutional simply because it uses the tax code as enforcement.

I would think as a free person, I would have the right to not have insurance, or to be self insured. I grant it may not be smart, but we have the right to be stupid so to speak.

I will also grant that I do not feel I have the right to force some else to save me from my being stupid, so if I chose to not have insurance…it is my responsibility.

But then there is the problem……responsibility!

Bottom line…..this will be a major mess with all the love and compassion of the IRS/BATF/etc can deliver! I bet we will have a lot fewer Canadians coming here for medical reasons…