Cornell - a Microcosm of Obamacare

[Boomhauer]

Here in Michigan, we have "No Fault" "Read, My Fault" insurance, where if someone nails your legally parked car, your insurance (if you have that coverage) has to pay for the repairs to your car. A big boon to the insurance companies.

And, I assume, that makes your insurance go up...

Whoever came up with that was smoking crack.

[Firethorn]

There is no opting out of this, I either buy insurance, pay the fine, or stop breathing. The government has no right to do this.

The supreme court said it could. 

As to remaining there or not, that is where it should remain and having the government further intrude does not help that. If I opt to not purchase health insurance and get cancer, how is my tiny little fine actually making up for the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills I am racking up? It doesn't, and it still ends up between me and the hospital.

You're still not thinking widely enough.  It's not just your fine, it's the fines for the ~10k others who didn't get cancer.  You know, the way insurance works.
It's also not supposed to compensate the hospital so much as miscellaneous government costs, like the chances you'll end up on medicare after you've lost your job due to your untreated cancer(because you didn't have the insurance or the credit rating for the hospital to treat you), etc...

As you say, it's insufficient for this purpose, but it's what they could get away with.  The real idea with it is to make NOT getting insurance a little more expensive, making getting insurance look like a better deal so more people actually buy it.

[lupinus]

I don't really care what the supreme court said. That maintains it is legal, despite the reasoning being contrary to the argument, not right.

And having insurance is no guarantee a person with a prolonged illness doesn't end up on medicare. Its a fine for breathing, and its bullshit.

[RocketMan]

I don't really care what the supreme court said. That maintains it is legal, despite the reasoning being contrary to the argument, not right.

The Supreme Court completely and thoroughly screwed the pooch on their judgment of Obamacare.  And yet the pooch, I am sure, was left unsatisfied.

And having insurance is no guarantee a person with a prolonged illness doesn't end up on medicare.  Its a fine for breathing, and its bullshit.

Breaking it down to its absolutely most basic level, yes it is.  And I agree with your scatological analysis.


edited fer speeling

[Boomhauer]

The supreme court said it could. 

The Supreme Court also ruled very wrong in a little case called "Kelo v. New London", where they said eminent domain also meant that the government could seize your property and give it to another private owner to further economic development.

And years before that, they mangled the commerce clause with Wickard v. Filburn.

Or, US vs. Miller.

And then way back in the old days, how about Dred Scott v. Sanford?


Just because the Supreme Court rules and says something is "Constitutional" does not necessarily make it RIGHT. The SC was intended as a check on the power of the government and to protect the rights of the citizens but over the years they have gone rogue and ruled in favor of expanding government power or blatantly violating constitutional rights.

[erictank]

The Supreme Court also ruled very wrong in a little case called "Kelo v. New London", where they said eminent domain also meant that the government could seize your property and give it to another private owner to further economic development.

As I recall, in a particularly-karmically-appropriate fashion, Justice Souter (one of the majority Justices on Kelo) had some of his property seized for development under that finding.

[Boomhauer]

As I recall, in a particularly-karmically-appropriate fashion, Justice Souter (one of the majority Justices on Kelo) had some of his property seized for development under that finding.

[MechAg94]

The supreme court said it could. 

I believe they said it was a tax.  Can Cornell tax its students? 

[Firethorn]

I believe they said it was a tax.  Can Cornell tax its students? 

Well, I suppose it can set up it's fee structure however it likes, but I already expressed why I disagree with the Cornell policy.  With Obamacare, at least you can normally select from a number of plans with a number of companies(IE competition) to avoid the penalty.  With the Cornell policy, they don't care if you already have health coverage, indeed browsing their site in order to 'merely' pay the penalty you have to prove that you have a qualifying healthcare plan.  International students are out of luck even if they have the government of the UAE guaranteeing their healthcare.  You're automatically signed up for the healthcare plan, at a cost of over a grand.

In short, the $350 seems to be a socialist scheme 'You're lucky enough to have healthcare coverage already?  Then you can afford to subsidize the other students!'

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's all a socialist scheme


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sergeant Bob]

And, I assume, that makes your insurance go up...

Whoever came up with that was smoking crack and making money hand over fist

There ya go!

[230RN]

Boomhauer, you got that right:

Just because the Supreme Court rules and says something is "Constitutional" does not necessarily make it RIGHT. The SC was intended as a check on the power of the government and to protect the rights of the citizens but over the years they have gone rogue and ruled in favor of expanding government power or blatantly violating constitutional rights.

I had a signature line on some board for a while which said,

It's hard to have a checks-and-balances form of Government when all three branches are in cahoots.

Terry, 230RN

REF:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47278.msg964863#msg964863