Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

No, the idea of insurance is that the insurance company bases your premium on the likelihood of you making a claim, not someone else making a claim. If it weren't so, there would be no need for actuarials, just people who could do division.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Meanwhile,those that don't have health insurance place extra burden on the rest of the taxpayers.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Funny, that the wingbutts had TWO presidencies of the last four to produce and pass something.
Somehow a black president gets the drop on those uncaring white fools and suddenly something is worse than nothing!!!
It's a poor excuse for not looking after the disenfranchised and needy in this county. Suddenly it's a great emergency.
If the wingbutts had said, let's take a close look and improve what can be improved to get even MORE poor Americans covered with insurance it would have bipartisan support!
But the way of the wingbutts is by vilifying, not improving.
I hope they loose their asses. It would fly in the faces of the self righteous white asses that feel ownership and entitlement in this country.
We have become the England that you left behind so many years ago!!!

SS

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Just think,now the Turds get to reverse roles! Perfectly legitimate,turnabout is fair play. Oh,yeah,screw the taxpayers because after all,they were dumb enough to re-elect most of the sorry asses on both sides.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

I never said that the analogy was perfect. But, consider. Those who live in NYC, as did you and I presume you father and grandparents did, generally didn't own cars. Foregoing car ownership in NYC is an eminently reasonable CHOICE, give among other factors the traffic congestion and where to find a parking place. Many New Yorkers rent when they need a car; rental cars usually have some sort of insurance included. Therefore, no need for auto insurance unless you own and drive your car on public roads. "It was only when I finally bought a car that I was required to buy insurance." Even so. Time to join in spreading the risk, which is the purpose of any sort of insurance.

As I see it the major problem with your discussion is that while auto insurance is perhaps a choice, by virtue of one's choice to own/drive a car, few of us really wish to forego our existence and thus for us with "normal" fiscal resources, some sort of health insurance is essential...unless we are willing to sponge off others when the inevitable illness or medical emergency arises.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Really? You are so intellectually deficient that you had to bring race to the issue? Really?

Obamacare is done, and it was not killed by the republicans, if fell under its own weight, it was poorly conceived legislation and it took only a few years for it to become unsustainable. Personally I don't to much care so far for what the republicans are putting together but I really don't think that they care so much what I think, they will do whatever they think it takes to protect their political future.

Healthcare is not a right, it just isn't, but if our society wants to provide healthcare for all then it has to figure out a way to pay for it, and the democrat fall back position of make the rich pay is not going to work, it is inherently unfair to expect some to pay and others to get a free ride, it is the democrat dream, but most of America has never supported the dems in their efforts to raise taxes only on a specific class in this country.

Interest on debt currently is calculated at with a blended rate of 2.4 percent, debt service this year will be about $450 billion, just a few years ago it was $250, if interest rates return to their historical norms it will be over $1 trillion, larger than any federal programs other than Social Security and Medicare. So, where does this money come from smart guy? Do we just keep spending money that we don't have so that we push debt service so high that future generations will have no money for their government? All governmental revenues will be consumed by debt service? Is our generation so entitled and deserving that we can spend our children's and grandchildren's futures?

Hey, you guys want free healthcare, free college, free nutrition.... Go ahead, bring it all on, just pay for it, and don't ask others to pay for it, put your freakin wallet where your mouth is, figure out what it will take and institute a flat tax, make every income earner pay his share in this glorious paradise that you want for the people. Don't chase our businesses overseas by legislating that they pay for it, pony up and make everyone pay.

I don't know why dems don't support a federalist system, just think, if the federal government was small as envisioned by our constitution, they would not need all those federal taxes they collect, nor would they interfere with the great state of California's business, you could keep all that tax money that you send to the feds and do your own Califoricare, and a host of other programs that you liberals have such a hard on for, wouldn't that make more since than to have to be oppressed from time to time by the flyover and their president, Donald Trump?

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

I was speaking in the most general sense. You are speaking of rating a prospective insurance purchaser, which is commonly done. Certainly if your auto driving record is dismal you can expect to pay more for auto insurance. To borrow an old adage, "Speed kills" your bank balance.

In health care insurance, as we have seen to our sorrow, rating can easily result in an individual being unable to buy health insurance AT ANY PRICE. While this may be a reasonable, even desirable outcome speaking strictly of the profit/loss statement, try justifying it to the parent of a child with, say, cystic fibrosis or one of many chronic conditions requiring extensive care and therapy.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

The DemoCraps had 7 years to fix this piece of crap and did NOTHING and anything the Republicans sent the president was never even read.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

The Constitution is not designed to be a repository for all Federal statutes which I suspect (or hope) you already know. As for the Constitutionality which I suspect you are trying to challenge with your back handed snark, ask Chief Justice Roberts.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

And what DID the Republicans send to the President, other than a resolution for repeal? Did they ever submit any substantive suggestions for a fix? How do you know that the "proposals" were not read? Were you there??

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

Of course not. But it is designed as a limit on the power and scope of the federal government. As to asking a justice, that argument didn't work so well as regards justice Taney, did it?

Kombiguy Loc: Cedar Rapids, IA

If the goal of insurance were to spread the risk, then the simplest form of insurance would be to add up all the costs of illness in this country, and divide by the population, and have everyone pay an equal share. That's not really the way we want to deal with the issue, is it? Why should someone who is in perfect health pay as much for insurance against future illness as someone who is in abysmal health?
And it is worth noting that as to car insurance, one cannot but it to cover an already existing condition.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Your specific complaint was that the health care is not mentioned in the Constitution. Now you are changing your argument.

Your rebuttal re: Justice Taney is irrelevant. Maybe someday Justice Roberts will be over turned, but in our time and place, we have current rulings that define the playing field. And my guess is that Justice Roberts is a more credible source on Constitutional law that either you or me. I don't agree with Citizens United, but I don't challenge its current Constitutionality. Nor do I whine about it.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

There isn't a reason that they can't get insurance if they pay for it. Let you whining libtards help these people out.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California