Thursday, June 9, 2011

No, No, No, No, No!!!!!

I cannot begin to tell you how insanely angry this makes me. 

Yesterday, judges on the appeals court hearing arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare questioned the notion of the government’s legal ability to compel private citizens to purchase products under the Commerce Clause.  Here’s how one reporter described the government’s response:

Katyal argued that healthcare is unique and unlike purchasing other products, like vegetables in a grocery store. “You can walk out of this courtroom and be hit by a bus,” he said. And if such a person has no insurance, a hospital and the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of his emergency care, he said.”


I may have missed it but so far I have never heard the correct and most obvious response to this argument:  Since when do hospitals and the taxpayers “have to” pay the costs for emergency care for people who are uninsured?  Is this requirement written in the Constitution somewhere?  No.  It is a completely false argument built on a completely contrived premise. 

This notion that other people are somehow responsible for services rendered to the uninsured is the culmination of many years of progressive brainwashing to the point where it seems almost everyone accepts this lie as fact.  If someone needs emergency care but has no insurance, the logical plan is that those people should be on the hook for the cost of that care.  This may mean they have to work out a long-term payment plan, but so be it.  That’s the consequence of not having insurance. So for those who complain about irresponsible people who shrug off the need for insurance, I say, “What better incentive could there be to encourage responsible behavior than the looming threat of an emergency room bill that you actually have to pay for yourself.”  Voila, problem solved.

Not only that, but two of the reasons emergency care is so outrageously expensive are tied to this easily fixable behavior.  People use the emergency room for minor illnesses precisely because they have no insurance and know they can’t be turned away.  If, by imposing real consequences, we motivate more people to buy insurance (and we definitely will), this will reduce the demand for emergency services and the cost to everyone else.  Secondly, by forcing people to take responsibility for the cost of their emergency care we would significantly reduce the unpaid costs that are spread to people and insurance companies who actually do pay, and this would further reduce healthcare costs.

So this falsehood that there is some sort of constitutionally imposed mandate for hospitals and taxpayers to pay for the uninsured is a lie of great consequence – purposely so.  It is, as we can see, the intentionally contrived basis for Obamacare.  Therefore we must never let it go unchallenged.

8 comments:

  1. Oh but, CW, where is your compassion? Where is your sense of civic duty? Where is your understanding that we must all share the burden for one another at the government level? Isn't that the purpose of government -- to ensure equal distribution of everything? Goodness gracious, you must be one of those rich people who don't care about others. (You are throwing up are you? lol)

    ReplyDelete
  2. OOOOOOOOps ... was supposed to read: (You aren't throwing up are you? lol)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I appreciate your satire, Mrs. AL. You know, I think people would be willing to help out the truly unfortunate on their own, individually, provided they agree that the circumstances warrant it. The gov't takes away our choice in the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed 100%, people do help one another. Individually and at a local level. That's where it is supposed to occur. This government fixes everything falsehood is going to kill this country fast.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm proposing a bill to make Sam's Club mandatory. After all, it's everyone’s right to have food and a big screen TV. If someone is starving and they don't have a Sam's Club membership, they become a burden on the tax payer who has to donate to the food kitchens. And if they don't have a 60" 1080p LCD 3D TV, well it's a crime against humanity.
    And just to make sure the law passes we'll give free memberships and big screens to anyone who doesn't want to vote for it.

    Sorry to post like this, Blogspot is acting weird

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, Jim. I'm sure that's what's next.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CW, I agree, I do not buy that argument that healthcare is different from any other item we may purchase. Healthcare is not a right, and you are right about people going to the emergency room with minor illnesses. So they should be turned away.

    ReplyDelete