It's tough finding origional sources because it was a long time ago and most people refrence it but here's the court case where a Heritage expert was quoted
Court cites Heritage Foundation’s 1989 support for healthcare mandate in decision : USACTION NEWS
GOP Leaders Backed a Healthcare Mandate
Also keep in mind....the privatization of Social Security that Bush was putting out had a mandate to buy into retirement as well.
Is anyone else here tired of these mindless generalizations?
So long as there is cancer, there will be demand for cancer treatment.
That people pay for it themselves means there will always be competition in the market.
Competition always reduces prices and improves quality.
:shrug:
Sorry but that statement is absurd when you talking healthcare...only the richest in the country could even possibly consider having the money to pay for long term cancer care, treatment and medications.
It does if the suppliers want to move their goods/services. Otherwise they're stuck with something they cannot sell.Demand requires someone willing to purchase or able to at a certain price. I don't think you understand the demand curve. Just because demand is there at a lower price does not mean the price drops.
I feel you are down playing the importance of an affirmation by the SCOTUS.
Were it struck down, it would be a blow to the president and the GOP would declare victory and capitalize on that.
No... you're in a bind and you're trying to come up with excuses to not address what's been put to you.Am I in bizarro world?
Your statement ignores, rather than addresses, the point.Sorry but that statement is absurd when you talking healthcare...only the richest in the country could even possibly consider having the money to pay for long term cancer care, treatment and medications.
Why/how am I responsible for the costs of goods/services provided to those who could not pay for them?There is only one absolute in the healthcare debate...the haves in this country are never going to get out of paying for the have nots that dont have health care
Well, I want to say that the employer mandate is what Heritage offered the individual mandate against. I'm not totally sure though so don't quote me on that.Thanks for the link. I tried to read through it to gather context and well, I'm not going to make it. LOL
Your link notes something was argued in 1989. Hillarycare was fought against after that and no attempts were made under Bush to force people to buy insurance so at best I'd say that someone with the Heritage Foundation made some sort of arguement in the late 80's.................
Yes, and if we had a universal payer system there would be no constitutionality questions because it would basically be medicare for all. The issue was Bush was saying people had to open a personal account with a private firm and invest in that private firm which is essentially the same thing as forcing people to buy private insurance.S.S. is a tax that already requires that.
No... you're in a bind and you're trying to come up with excuses to not address what's been put to you.
Pretend YOU own a medical facility. Pretend there is no insurance, so the only way YOU get paid for services rendered, is if those customer (patients) can afford, and pay, for those services. Now, in this imaginary world, think about what is going to make the most money for yourself?
At this point, its clear you're only interested in being as willfully dishonest as you can.I have...
At this point, its clear you're only interested in being as willfully dishonest as you can.
When you think you have the capacity to honestly and actually address the points put to you, please let me know.
Actually, it saddens me greately that you cannot be honest enough - at least w/ yourself - to address these questions I put to you.Ok, whatever makes you feel better.
Yes, and if we had a universal payer system there would be no constitutionality questions because it would basically be medicare for all. The issue was Bush was saying people had to open a personal account with a private firm and invest in that private firm which is essentially the same thing as forcing people to buy private insurance.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the private mandate at all. Republicans haven't offered any alternative at all besides tort reform or selling across state lines. The first would make a negligible blip in the cost of insurance and the second...we'd see a race to unregulated states as the base for insurance companies.
I dislike the arguement that something would only make a small difference. Everything added together makes a much larger difference and nothing should be excluded. I'm not against trying to come up with a system to cover everyone but everything must be reformed for it to work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?