(Healthcare) Eleven states filing lawsuits

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322

ParielIsBack wrote: I don't even understand why they want to require people to have insurance.  The point should be that everyone has the opportunity to acquire insurance, not that they must have insurance.

I'd better go get insurance before I become a felon and deh take mah gunz.

The idea is that if more people pay into the system, it will be cheaper, this has not been the case in MA. We have 4 insurance companies and a variety of plans, available, starting at around $150/month for me. I can get cheaper insurance through school ($800-1000 per year) and if I were not in school, it would be free. In fact the hippy-scumbag health connector suggested I lie about being enrolled in college to avoid having to pay, therefore screwing others. I have until June to get insured of face state fines of around $1000, and now federal criminal charges and fines. I don't understand how if this federal plan is considered to be dealing w/ interstate commerce I can't by cheaper insurance from another state. Booooo!

Let's just transplant our system across the border :) That would totally work, right?

choopie911 wrote: Let's just transplant our system across the border :) That would totally work, right?

Not for Canadians it wouldn't.

Edited by StormyKnight - 22 March 2010 at 4:51pm

brihard wrote: Again, quoting a buddy of mine on another site: They still didn't get 100% coverage like the uneducated think. They got 30million more. The numbers vary but they may have gotten between around 89-93 percent or so. That last 10 percent or so is where the problem is really going to be. Those are the people who are really indigent. They are the ones who are unable to take care of themselves. Those are the ones with the severe medical issues. No coverage for them.

Or they are the ones between coverage, like half of the uninsured we count

What I don't understand is how you can call it insurance, if they HAVE to accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Doesn't that sort of conflict with the meaning of the word insurance?

There is a good point, we are all required to pay the Social Security FICA tax, and there is a distinct possibility the system will go belly up due to government mismanagement before many of you are even eligable, losing the thousand to hundreds of thousands you 'invest' in Social Security in your lifetimes. And now they also will control your health care as well as retirement in the same fasion, the potentials of even greater mismanagement of your tax dollars ny the 'nanny' government is mind boggling.

Mack wrote: I don't expect, and don't count on, ever collecting a dime of what I have paid into social security.

Which makes me wonder why so many of my generation are willing to cut their own throats and pay into unsustainable programs.  I don't get the logic that we needed a constitutional amendment to have a national income tax, and tax someone's means of living, but taxing someone for being alive is constitutional.

It's kind of like how when I start teaching, I'm not required to join the union, but still have to pay union dues, apparently because I will still benefit in terms of higher pay, I owe them. Even if as a new teacher I'd be the first out during cutbacks. Who wants to go off-grid and start a hunter-gatherer society in a national park? I'm getting sick of this crap.


Edited by rednekk98 - 22 March 2010 at 10:23pm