Supreme Court about to rule on Obamacare any moment now

**MartinBlank** · 06-25-12, 09:44 AM

Per CNBC, not today.

More likely Wednesday.

Per the Hill.

Kennedy authored the Arizona issue, which means more than likely Roberts' wrote the health care decision, and that would mean it has been overturned.

I'm curious, what 6 will vote the mandate down? Which liberal justice is crossing over?

**frogsrangers** · 06-25-12, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by MartinBlank

Per CNBC, not today.

More likely Wednesday.

Per the Hill.

Kennedy authored the Arizona issue, which means more than likely Roberts' wrote the health care decision, and that would mean it has been overturned.

I'm curious, what 6 will vote the mandate down? Which liberal justice is crossing over?

I actually think it would be a 5-4 decision striking down the mandate, but a 6-3 decision upholding the law

Roberts and Kennedy will author, which means Kennedy crossed the aisle on the mandate but dragged Roberts over to uphold the rest

**Thor4140** · 06-25-12, 10:09 AM

Right wing supreme court will do what is right for the party and embarrass the president while fuking the people once again. The only reason this supreme court is full of these asshole is because Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants.

**jjgold** · 06-25-12, 10:48 AM

It is the silliest plan in American history
Would bankrupt small business and kill economy
Dumbo Obama

It will get overturned

**frogsrangers** · 06-25-12, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by jjgold

It is the silliest plan in American history
Would bankrupt small business and kill economy
Dumbo Obama

It will get overturned

Pretty much

We are about to find out if we are subjects, or citizens with this ruling

**big0mar** · 06-25-12, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by MartinBlank

Per CNBC, not today.

More likely Wednesday.

Per the Hill.

Kennedy authored the Arizona issue, which means more than likely Roberts' wrote the health care decision, and that would mean it has been overturned.

I'm curious, what 6 will vote the mandate down? Which liberal justice is crossing over?

Roberts was going to write it regardless of what the decision is.

**jjgold** · 06-25-12, 11:20 AM

We need Obama knocked out of office

**hockey216** · 06-25-12, 04:16 PM

obamas liberals are going to uphold it.

Personally, i believe you can't force people to buy something. If people (perhaps unwisely) choose to spend their money on goods and services other than health insurance, it is their right to do so. You cannot mandate that individuals purchase insurance. That is unconstitutional. People have the right to do what they want with their money. It's not a debate about whether universal healthcare is good or bad. It's whether congress has the authority to pass a law mandating that people have to buy a service.

Can the government mandate that all persons, under penalty of law, be required to purchase cell phones, "in case" of the event where they need severe 9/11 assistance?

No.

Then why can they mandate that all persons, under penalty of law, purchase health insurance "in case" of the event that they get sick?

**dante1** · 06-25-12, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by hockey216

obamas liberals are going to uphold it.

Personally, i believe you can't force people to buy something. If people (perhaps unwisely) choose to spend their money on goods and services other than health insurance, it is their right to do so. You cannot mandate that individuals purchase insurance. That is unconstitutional. People have the right to do what they want with their money. It's not a debate about whether universal healthcare is good or bad. It's whether congress has the authority to pass a law mandating that people have to buy a service.

Can the government mandate that all persons, under penalty of law, be required to purchase cell phones, "in case" of the event where they need severe 9/11 assistance?

No.

Then why can they mandate that all persons, under penalty of law, purchase health insurance "in case" of the event that they get sick?

Well then without the mandate the American people will continue paying the health costs for every person in this country that uses health care and doesn't have insurance. That is certainly not a R virtue, what happened to self reliance. If you need health care in this country you get it so that is not the question. If you don't have insurance then you and I pay for it. That certainly is not a R virtue. Some issues transcend
individual rights. This is one of them.

**TexansFan** · 06-25-12, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Thor4140

Right wing supreme court will do what is right for the party and embarrass the president while fuking the people once again. The only reason this supreme court is full of these asshole is because Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants.

STFU you moron. You're the most partisan hack I've ever seen, really a pos fucktard. You're just a miserable old **** that time has passed by.

**MUHerd37** · 06-25-12, 05:21 PM

Supreme Court said the ruling will be out Thursday.

**MC PICKS** · 06-25-12, 05:21 PM

They will announce it thursday.

**Shaudius** · 06-25-12, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by hockey216

obamas liberals are going to uphold it.

Personally, i believe you can't force people to buy something. If people (perhaps unwisely) choose to spend their money on goods and services other than health insurance, it is their right to do so. You cannot mandate that individuals purchase insurance. That is unconstitutional. People have the right to do what they want with their money. It's not a debate about whether universal healthcare is good or bad. It's whether congress has the authority to pass a law mandating that people have to buy a service.

The problem is that its not necessarily unwise, but it does create a free loader problem. People take the calculated risk that they won't get sick, and they know that if they do get sick, that they can't be denied service if their life is threatened even if they can't afford to pay for it.

This isn't like the 911 assistance, because no one is mandating that the cops come find you and help you out if you can't get a hold of them.

That is not to say that the method of stopping the problem is constitutional. It probably isn't, but I find it odd that while the Affordable Care Act is probably not constitutional, a single payer system would be. That is to say, the government can't mandate individuals buy private insurance, but they could mandate that everyone pay 15% of their income to a tax, and then provide covered healthcare to all(maybe there would still be things you had to pay out of pocket for). In effect its the same thing.

Its also worth noting that this a federal government problem, not a state government problem. There is probably also little question that states could pass things like what Mass. did, which is the individual mandate on the state level due to their more expansive police power, versus the federal government's plenary powers.

**agharah1** · 06-25-12, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by jjgold

It is the silliest plan in American history
Would bankrupt small business and kill economy
Dumbo Obama

It will get overturned

Oh for the love of God learn to speak English. What country do you live in again?

**hockey216** · 06-25-12, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Shaudius

The problem is that its not necessarily unwise, but it does create a free loader problem. People take the calculated risk that they won't get sick, and they know that if they do get sick, that they can't be denied service if their life is threatened even if they can't afford to pay for it.

This isn't like the 911 assistance, because no one is mandating that the cops come find you and help you out if you can't get a hold of them.

That is not to say that the method of stopping the problem is constitutional. It probably isn't, but I find it odd that while the Affordable Care Act is probably not constitutional, a single payer system would be. That is to say, the government can't mandate individuals buy private insurance, but they could mandate that everyone pay 15% of their income to a tax, and then provide covered healthcare to all(maybe there would still be things you had to pay out of pocket for). In effect its the same thing.

Its also worth noting that this a federal government problem, not a state government problem. There is probably also little question that states could pass things like what Mass. did, which is the individual mandate on the state level due to their more expansive police power, versus the federal government's plenary powers.

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to mandate that people purchase a particular service from the private sector.

If the govt wanted to be the providing agent (as in medicare) and raise taxes to personally provide, that would be constitutional. It is not constitutional to mandate that persons purchase, under penalty of law, a service from the private sector.

Why do you claim that healthcare is a national problem, not a state problem? Who's responsibility is it to pay poor people's medical billls? It is their own responisbility. But, if they cannot afford to pay their bills, who should the responsibility fall on? This also entails the bigger philosophical question which is, "what responsibility does the government have to take care of sick people with no money?"

I still believe that the court's opinion of Obamacare is not a result of whether govt healthcare is "good" or "bad".... but whether the government has the constitutional authority to mandate, under penalty of law, that citizens purchase a service from the private sector.

...the answer is no. The constitution does not grant congress that authority.

But obama's two liberals are going to uphold it.

**Thor4140** · 06-25-12, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by TexansFan

STFU you moron. You're the most partisan hack I've ever seen, really a pos fucktard. You're just a miserable old **** that time has passed by.

We will see who is right douchebag. Since u are always wrong it won't be to hard to tell who is right. Now go as a cop and vote Republican. One of the dumbest sum bitches in Texas

**Sam Odom** · 06-25-12, 09:13 PM

Will you accept a 5-4 decision ?

.

**SBR_John** · 06-25-12, 09:47 PM

Striking down the mandate will force Obama to finally reach out and find a compromise. Or so it would seem. Kind of ironic that he campaigned that he was the moderate that would reach out and change the way business is done in Washington. He never did but now he has to or there will be no funding for Obama care. And this time around the House belongs to Republicans with Senate soon to be. Should be interesting. he is going to be the lamest duck president in history if he is re elected.

**Shaudius** · 06-25-12, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by hockey216

The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to mandate that people purchase a particular service from the private sector.

The federal government absolutely has the authority to mandate that people purchase a particular good from the private sector. That case was already decided, it was decided in 1942 in fact, when the Supreme Court held that the federal government could force a farmer to buy wheat from the private sector instead of growing his own.

The issue in this case is that the federal government is forcing people into a market they aren't already in, the market for health insurance. The government's argument in the healthcare case is that the market that's being regulated isn't health insurance but instead healthcare, and that every person whether they like it or not will at some point in their lives consume healthcare therefore healthcare is unique in that everyone will consume it. Scalia argument about broccoli was out of place, because it presupposes that consumption of broccoli is a market that everyone will be in, it is not. Instead a better analogy would be the food market, the federal government has the authority to regulate food in general, or to mandate that all people within the United States purchase some sort of food in general and not specifically. Based on Wickard it would seem to me that the FG does have that authority, to mandate that all persons buy some sort of food. There is just no situation where a mandate like that would ever come up because of course people need to consume food, but interestingly a law like that would be very similar to what happened in Wickard.

Originally posted by hockey216

If the govt wanted to be the providing agent (as in medicare) and raise taxes to personally provide, that would be constitutional. It is not constitutional to mandate that persons purchase, under penalty of law, a service from the private sector.

Again, yes it is. The federal government just arguably cannot force you into a market you weren't already in. Thats the issue in this case, not whether or not the federal government can regulate who you purchase a particular good from or even that you purchase from a private party instead of growing yourself, but whether or not they can force you into a market you were not already a participant in.

Originally posted by SBR_John

Why do you claim that healthcare is a national problem, not a state problem? Who's responsibility is it to pay poor people's medical billls? It is their own responisbility. But, if they cannot afford to pay their bills, who should the responsibility fall on? This also entails the bigger philosophical question which is, "what responsibility does the government have to take care of sick people with no money?"

Well that's a fundamental question of the role of society you are right. But this goes well beyond the Affordable Care Act. We as a society, at least up until this point have decided that those who are sick enough to need emergency assistance cannot be denied it by hospitals. Within that context, someone has to pay for it, it is obvious that some segment of the population will not be able to afford this care on their own, so therefore the cost is shifted from those who cannot afford the service but need it, to those who can afford some other service the hospital provides. Nothing is free.

Maybe you disagree that society should be responsible for the cost of emergency care for the poor in society, and from a philosophical standpoint that may me a tenable position. My only point is that its not the position society has currently taken.

As for the reason that its arguably a federal government problem and not a state problem isn't so easy a question to answer. The argument basically goes that the healthcare market isn't restricted to just one state, and since people have freedom of movement its hard for the state governments themselves to take care of the issue. So say a citizen of Michigan travels to Illinois and doesn't have insurance, they aren't refused care, but now the hospital in Illinois would be on the hook for their services. This would be especially problematic in border areas where you may live in one state but be transported to a hospital in another. I'm not entirely convinced of the soundness of the argument, but it makes at least some amount of sense.

Originally posted by SBR_John

I still believe that the court's opinion of Obamacare is not a result of whether govt healthcare is "good" or "bad".... but whether the government has the constitutional authority to mandate, under penalty of law, that citizens purchase a service from the private sector.

As I stated above that is not the issue. The court ruled over 70 years ago that Congress does have the authority through the constitution to compel someone to purchase a good or service from the private sector, but that case only extended as far as to goods and services someone was already in the market for. The distinction here is whether or not someone is inherently in the health insurance market by needing to consume healthcare at some point in their life. Or even whether that is a sound argument.

Originally posted by SBR_John

...the answer is no. The constitution does not grant congress that authority.

But obama's two liberals are going to uphold it.

The constitution does grant Congress the authority to regulate commerce, as long as someone is already in the market, the issue in this case is whether or not people are in the market already.

Originally posted by SBR_John

Striking down the mandate will force Obama to finally reach out and find a compromise. Or so it would seem. Kind of ironic that he campaigned that he was the moderate that would reach out and change the way business is done in Washington. He never did but now he has to or there will be no funding for Obama care. And this time around the House belongs to Republicans with Senate soon to be. Should be interesting. he is going to be the lamest duck president in history if he is re elected.

The individual mandate was supposed to be the compromise. There's a reason that it was proposed. The full on bore was single payer, which wasn't supported enough.

What exactly do you think the Republicans plan for reigning in healthcare costs is such that there could possibly be a compromise on this issue. All I hear from the right is repeal Obamacare so that we have our crack at it, but I don't actually know what Republicans crack at it entails.

**Sam Odom** · 06-25-12, 10:55 PM

Shaudius , you are a disingenuous ass - why ? Because you know better...

"That case was already decided, it was decided in 1942"

Tons of differences in that ^ case and ObamaCare

We shall see

**Shaudius** · 06-25-12, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

Shaudius , you are a disingenuous ass - why ? Because you know better...

"That case was already decided, it was decided in 1942"

Tons of differences in that ^ case and ObamaCare

We shall see

There is a difference between the Affordable Care Act and Wickard, where do you see me saying there isn't? There is not however a difference between Wickard and the statement, " The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to mandate that people purchase a particular service from the private sector."

Wickard talks about a good, but it could equally well apply to a service, and I haven't ever seen an argument that Wickard was specifically talking about goods and not services. Wickard absolutely says that the FG can mandate people buy products from the private sector rather than consume their own products. The distinction is in whether or not the government can force people into a market they aren't already in and then make them buy a product, which is distinct from the statements people are making in this thread.

I have to wonder why you respond to something I wrote without even bothering to read what I wrote. I mean I say it myself in the paragraph right after the one you quote that the Healthcare case is distinct from Wickard.

**Sam Odom** · 06-25-12, 11:15 PM

Shaudius , individuals under ObamaCare are penalized for NOT being engaged in a commerce , a commerce they have no interest in but is forced upon them

Anyhow... You seem to be a good sport , a disingenuous one tho

BTW-- will you accept a 5-4 decision Pro or Con ?

**hockey216** · 06-25-12, 11:25 PM

That is what i meant Shaud...

The federal govt does not have the authority to force you to enter a market which you are not currently in. They can not force me to enter the insurance market. If i do not want to buy insurance, i do not have to. They can sit there and call me foolish for not buying insurance... but i have the right not to do so.

If i own a house, and do not want to insure it, i do not have to.

the govt cannot force you to buy insurance.

**Waterstpub87** · 06-25-12, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by hockey216

That is what i meant Shaud...

The federal govt does not have the authority to force you to enter a market which you are not currently in. They can not force me to enter the insurance market. If i do not want to buy insurance, i do not have to.

If i own a house, and do not want to insure it, i do not have to.

the govt cannot force you to buy insurance.

The argument that they try to make is this:

1. You do or will at some point need healthcare
2. Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency condition whether you can pay or not
3. If you don't have insurance, you either pay out of pocket, or society pays will higher costs
4. Everyone should therefore be forced to purchase insurance, so that no one can refuse to pay or be unable to.

The truth is that it would completely destroy the private sector in health insurance, because you cannot compete with someone who doesn't want or need to make a profit. They can severly undercut your prices, and once employeers know that you can simply have insurance provided at low cost per the government, no one will pay for better plans. The wealthy will be able to purchase better plans, and go to private and concerige hospitals that will undoubtably open if the demand exists for premium healthcare.

Once the government is in full control of the healthcare system, they will be able to dictate prices for medical equiptment and medications. This being said, it will reduce all incentive for drug companies to create anything new, because the government will refuse to pay the price that comes with innovation.

**hockey216** · 06-25-12, 11:29 PM

Shaud... is Obamacare only aimed at providing "emergency care for the poor"?

Or is it going to provide tons of other healthcare services, that are not for emergencies, to everyone, aside from the poor?

**hockey216** · 06-25-12, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

The argument that they try to make is this:

1. You do or will at some point need healthcare
2. Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency condition whether you can pay or not
3. If you don't have insurance, you either pay out of pocket, or society pays will higher costs
4. Everyone should therefore be forced to purchase insurance, so that no one can refuse to pay or be unable to.

If i do not have a major illness, society's cost is basically zero. Just because i need a checkup doesn't mean i need to insure my health with a million dollar insurance policy. You assume society pays "higher costs". This assumes that everyone that buys insurance gets sick and is better off with insurance than without it. There would be no market for insurance if this were the case. True, some people do get sick, never pay their bills, and society picks up the tab. There are lots of other people (like me) that have rarely been to a doctor in 5 years, and are always healthy. Society is not "picking up the tab" on people like me. I have dumped $50,000 into health insurance, and have only probably gotton 3,000 back out of it. Society is not "picking up my tab". Society only "picks up my tab" if i get more sick than other people, on average. Lots of people get less sick than other people on average. That is how insurance works. Companies take losses on some people, but make big gains on people who never file claims. Just because "at some point" in my life i will see a doctor does not mean i need insurance. If i dont buy insurance, and go for a $200 checkup, society is not paying the "higher cost." You are assuming that everyone gets major illness. That is simply not true. If I buy insurance, and never get sick, i will lose tons of money. If i want to roll the dice on that, i have the right to do so. It's like car insurance. If you are 50, have never been in a car accident, you have lost tons of money to insurance. Society is not "picking up your tab". There is no tab. You have never had to pay money to fix your car. You are prematurely assuming that everyone will get very sick and need insurance. My argument is that not everyone needs insurance, that people have the right to engage in healthcare policies as they freely choose, and that on average, insurance companies assess risk and make you pay more than your expected value for healthcare costs. This is how they pay their overhead, employees, etc. and still turn a profit. On average, insurance companies charge you more than your expected value for claims filed. Insurance is expected to be a losing investment.

**Sam Odom** · 06-25-12, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

The argument that they try to make is this:

1. You do or will at some point need healthcare

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

2. Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency condition whether you can pay or not

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

3. If you don't have insurance, you either pay out of pocket, or society pays will higher costs

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

4. Everyone should therefore be forced to purchase insurance, so that no one can refuse to pay or be unable to.

You see where this is going...?

Individuals under ObamaCare are penalized for NOT being engaged in a commerce , a commerce they have no interest in but is forced upon them

**icancount2one** · 06-26-12, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

You see where this is going...?

Individuals under ObamaCare are penalized for NOT being engaged in a commerce , a commerce they have no interest in but is forced upon them

You do know that you're paying for every uninsured person that waits until they're sick enough to require emergency care they can't pay for right? ECON 101. Somebody is paying for all these people already. Not that ObamaCare is the best way to do it, imo.

Anyway, Obamacare goes down 5-4 on party lines.

**ChalkyDog** · 06-26-12, 12:16 AM

Obamacare wont be shot down in entirety. As we have seen so many times with issues like this, they will keep the important part. Obviously the mandatory or fine will be gone, but that language was tactically put in there exactly for this issue.

**d2bets** · 06-26-12, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Sam Odom

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

So... One individual may pay cash for his healthcare needs

You see where this is going...?

Individuals under ObamaCare are penalized for NOT being engaged in a commerce , a commerce they have no interest in but is forced upon them

But you are engaged in commerce. As you travel around, you come across hospitals that will accept you if you have a need. They are there for you. They won't turn you down. You are engaged in commerce. They are on call for you.

I guess I shouldn;t have to pay toward my local fire department. I mean, hey, I've never used them and I probably never will. I'll take my chances. Opt me out.

Just doesn't work well that way. It's a free rider when it comes down to it. The fire dept. wont let your house burn and the ER doctor won't let you die when medicine can save you, regardless of ability to pay or your prior engagement in medical commerce.

**Sam Odom** · 06-26-12, 12:22 AM

C D , if the Mandate is removed ObamaCare is dead but will be a mess to sort out

**Sam Odom** · 06-26-12, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by d2bets

But you are engaged in commerce.

Only in YOUR mind - but ObamaCare may be uphelded 100%

BTW-- will you accept a 5-4 decision Pro or Con ?

**ChalkyDog** · 06-26-12, 12:25 AM

The argument about commerce, etc is all academic. SC wont kill this in entirety. SCOTUS is terrified overturning a bill so scrutinized and passed by both houses.

They will take out the parts that are absolutely terrible.

Obamacare remains until a new bill changes it.

**Shaudius** · 06-26-12, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by hockey216

If i do not have a major illness, society's cost is basically zero. Just because i need a checkup doesn't mean i need to insure my health with a million dollar insurance policy. You assume society pays "higher costs". This assumes that everyone that buys insurance gets sick and is better off with insurance than without it.

That's not the assumption, the assumption is that there is some group of people without insurance. Some percentage of that group will get catastrophically sick. This group will still be provided care, regardless of whether or not they can afford it. Society will therefore pay higher costs because that cost will be borne by hospitals. Hospitals will therefore have to charge higher rates for services to make up for this shortfall in payment for care.

Just because you don't have insurance and don't plan on getting sick doesn't mean you won't. That's why insurance exists which you seem to understand at least that part.

Originally posted by hockey216

There would be no market for insurance if this were the case. True, some people do get sick, never pay their bills, and society picks up the tab. There are lots of other people (like me) that have rarely been to a doctor in 5 years, and are always healthy. Society is not "picking up the tab" on people like me. I have dumped $50,000 into health insurance, and have only probably gotton 3,000 back out of it. Society is not "picking up my tab". Society only "picks up my tab" if i get more sick than other people, on average. Lots of people get less sick than other people on average. That is how insurance works. Companies take losses on some people, but make big gains on people who never file claims. Just because "at some point" in my life i will see a doctor does not mean i need insurance. If i dont buy insurance, and go for a $200 checkup, society is not paying the "higher cost."

You do not control directly when and if you get a major illness that requires emergency treatment. Someone could jump out of the bushes at you tomorrow and shoot you in the arm, you would then require emergency care. If you could not afford it, society would pick up the tab. Just because you're the type of person who never gets sick doesn't make you immune from needing emergency care. Society will then be picking up your tab. The argument as to why you need insurance is because society MAY pick up your tab, and you shouldn't be allowed to make society pick up your tab because you choose to forgo insurance.

Originally posted by hockey216

You are assuming that everyone gets major illness. That is simply not true. If I buy insurance, and never get sick, i will lose tons of money. If i want to roll the dice on that, i have the right to do so.

The issue is that you're not gambling with your own money, you're gambling with society's money. You choose to save money because you don't think you'll get sick, or get into a car accident, or have any number of conditions that require emergency care or major medical coverage. If you gamble wrong and you need some services and you can't afford them, you don't pick up the bill, society does. So basically you're in a win win situation, you save money by not having to be insured, and worse case scenario society picks up the bill for you if you gambled wrong.

Originally posted by hockey216

It's like car insurance. If you are 50, have never been in a car accident, you have lost tons of money to insurance. Society is not "picking up your tab". There is no tab. You have never had to pay money to fix your car. You are prematurely assuming that everyone will get very sick and need insurance. My argument is that not everyone needs insurance, that people have the right to engage in healthcare policies as they freely choose, and that on average, insurance companies assess risk and make you pay more than your expected value for healthcare costs. This is how they pay their overhead, employees, etc. and still turn a profit. On average, insurance companies charge you more than your expected value for claims filed. Insurance is expected to be a losing investment.

Again, the issue is not that you lost by paying insurance all those years, the issue is that those who win on the other side, as in those who do not purchase insurance do not bare the cost of their loss, they also don't have to bare the cost of their win if they win because they didn't buy insurance. That's the ultimate issue, its a free loader problem. You are free loading off the healthcare system by not having insurance and making others pay if you happen to get sick.

Who cares if you personally don't get sick, that's not the point, the point is that you COULD and it very well may be through no fault of your own or hell, it may be completely your fault, the hospital is not allowed to make the distinction, and therefore society COULD pay for your care.

This is not a liberal or conservative problem in need of a solution only on one side, this is a real issue. Whether or not you think the individual mandate is the method by which we solve the problem is the question, but I don't see how anyone who actually think about this cannot see this as a problem. People get care for free, the rest of us pay for it, even if we never consume emergency care, that's not the only cost that it raises, it raises all costs, your checkup costs more even if you never receive emergency care because the hospital has to provide emergency care for the uninsured.