Insured 20 year old man stuck with $11,000 hospital bill

What is your point? If the federal government was not unconstitutionally involved in health care it would not be plundering those of us who pay the taxes. You pay for you. I will pay for me. I do not care about your nonsense. If I want to pay more for my health care, what possible concern is it of yours? Get the federal government to stop doing the unconstitutional things it does and suddenly liberty will return.

 

And WAY LOWER prices too.

 

If you are not a liberal, Progressive, socialist, or Marxist then you might simply be, one of Lenin's "useful idiots." You are aiming at the wrong target. Your enemy is not the individual who wants to live in freedom. Your enemy is an evil and rapacious federal government.

 

Don't you LOVE people who complain about the "third" party but want to turn all healthcare over to another "third" party, the almighty federal government?

 

Get the government out of the unconstitutional things that it does. There is not a constitutional basis for the fascism we are seeing. The country pays nothing. The federal government takes from me to give to others. The government is an instrument of theft, of plunder, of a very great evil. The government does not pay for a thing. It steals wealth and consumes it.

 

"No. Your strong wish for plundering your neighbors is not constitutional. It is theft. Those who want it are tyrants and thieves."

Prove "it".
Prove what?
That plundering your neighbor is unconstitutional?
That plundering your neighbor is theft?
That those who want to plunder their neighbors are tyrants and thieves?

Hmmm. I am not able to fix, hmmm, your problem.

 

Three questions:

1. What, exactly are you paying for healthcare? Are you paying for health insurance? What are you paying for it? What is your coverage, deductible, co-insurance, stop-loss, lifetime cap?

2. Please cite the US Supreme Court case-law that says that it is unlawful for the federal government to be involved in healthcare or, more succinctly, to: a) furnish Medicare to elderly people; and b) levy a tax to insure those who refuse to insure themselves.

3. In the event that you are unable to furnish # 2 above, please cite some legal principle to refute the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

 

Misterveritis: What liberty, precisely, do you want that you do not now have? If you want "you pay for you and I pay for me", that is what we have now. Except that we have lots of uninsured people going to ER's for free, and they have to make it up somewhere, so you and I are paying for it. How do you propose we stop that? In addition to that, we have insurers making deals with hospitals to jack up the rates to increase what you and I pay, so that they exhaust our deductibles and co-insurance and reach our stop-loss amounts, then the insurer gets a discount and we pay more than they do. If that is what you like, then I am not sure that I can reason with you.

Crookededge: Your point is that, once we turn the health insurance industry loose, without regulation in a free market economy, we will have much lower rates?

 

Without insurance and government involvement? YES. Absolutely NO doubt about it.

 

Just because an action is technically legal does not make it right.

In this case Obama is picking the pockets of 250 million Americans who already had decent healthcare so he can bestow freebies on Obama voters without health insurance.

 

You do realize that we are paying for the healthcare of the Obama voters already, don't you?

And by the way, "Just because an action is technically legal does not make it right"? Did you really say that? You do realize that by "technically legal", you mean "constitutional", don't you?

 

"You did not build it". Society has decided that we are responsible for each other. If you don't like it, leave the society. Otherwise, stop whining.

 

You really have to get over your obsession about "unconstitutionality". Only in your mind is it unconstitutional. SCOTUS said it wasn't.

 

You really have a thing about this. It really is only in your head.

Ee ew, you have got it bad.

 

No, it said that the tax penalty was not unconstitutional.

 

Proof or opinion?

 

And "only YOU knows what is right". What a crock!

Boy, you got it bad. Thank is utter nonsense.

 

No, it said that ACA was not unconstitutional. See. laws passed by Congress and signed by the President is law unless SCOTUS says that it is not constitutional. When they rule on one aspect, they are, in effect, say the rest is constitutional. Even Scalia did not say ACA was unconstitutional. He was trying to strike down the whole ACA through rejecting the mandate. Nobody was foolish enough to try to object to the constitutionality of ACA because, when the government passes a law, SCOTUS recognizes the authority of the other 2 branches and can only judge based on an aspect that defies the Constitution.

The General Welfare clause allows the other 2 branches to generate laws for that general welfare. SCOTUS can only judge on violation to the Constitution. Is the law applied equally? Is the law overriding anything in the Constitution? Is the law breaking any precedent that could not be broken?

Congress use Constitutional scholars to make sure that they are not breaking Constitutional Rules. It is a waste for Congress to pass laws that it knows will be struck down. So lawyers go after aspects of the law to try to weaken the law or make it ineffective.

 

Do third parties add to costs or cut costs? DUH.

 

I do.

Which is the reason that Obama did not have to wreck the private health system in America for the rest of us who did not need ObamaCare.

Obama only did it because libs had complete control of government for two years and shoved a giant fraud onto an unsuspecting public.

Which brings us full circle.

Just because Obama has the power to do something stupid doesn't make it a good idea.

 

And yet the SCOTUS is calling up a case on other provisions of the law. What you seem to fail to understand is that a lot of causes of action were not ripe when the first case was heard because individuals had no standing. There will be a great many more cases. The first case turned on the penalty being a tax or a fine, nothing more. They did not go through the thing line by line.

 

The young man (as most young people are) is probably a Democrat, thus he has no problem with his Obamacare-inspired hospital bill.

It is indeed sad and disgusting that all white Americans are not as compassionate, selfless and understanding as this young man is. The young man is to be commended for being happy and willing to make a necessary personal, financial sacrifice to help fund quality health care for our nation's 50 million African Americans.

It is a glorious thing that our Obama is making greedy conservatives do the right thing.

Thank you

 

I am reminded of what Judge Haller told Vinnie, in "My Cousin Vinnie", when he said "I think I get it". He said (and I say to you):

Nooo, I don't think you do!

We have been paying for the healthcare of insured people since the Hill-Burton Act in 1946, which furnished federal money to local governments to build hospitals (hospitals that you and your ancestors use, by the way) and provide healthcare infrastructure (I think that this is what Obama was referencing, when he said "you didn' t build that"). In return for that building of infrastructure at the expense of the federal government, they were required to treat people who couldn't pay.

Obama did not do that, Harry Truman and the Senators from Alabama and Missouri did. If the current Congress (both sides) could get itself out of the tailspin that it is in and recall who puts the cash in the general fund, they could devise a way to kick the money changers out of the temple and get everyone paying something into the system so that you and I would not have to be bankrupted every time we paid a health insurance premium or got sick.

If you begin listening, you may one day "Get it"!

 

Not if they only pay the bills. Insurance companies do cost money because they are always trying to find ways to NOT pay the bills.

And I am sorry that I did not notice that you also wanted to eliminate insurance companies. Knocking out both insurance and government will save individuals on health care unless they get sick. You want the sickest to pick up all the costs. It is like saying "hey, you unhealthy people pay up or die".

That would save you money until you break your neck. Most of us in this society want some of that "Russian Roulette" scenario spread among all of us. You think that you would be happy with this scenario until it happens to you.

Why do you have car, house, life insurance? It is for "just in case" events. Don't worry. Even if you are a Scrooge, we will still take care of you when bad things happen to you.

 

How has ACA affected you? Only if you had a scam plan or a designer plan, would you pay more. Most of us do not have individual plans. Most of us have group plans. Over the last 3 years, health care costs have risen at a slower pace than before ACA. Any slow down in rising costs helps all of us, either in premiums or taxes. The government, before ACA, was paying about 57% of the health care costs (using our taxes).

RW propaganda has told you that ACA is bad and you parrot it. But, again, how has ACA affected you?