What's wrong with making it mandatory to buy Health Insurance ?

In a perfect world, people who spend welfare checks on rims and booze should be stripped of their money and forced into mandatory civil labor for abusing the people's money. And to your point of people having to obey what they've been told - big deal ? I realized long ago that most people are ungrateful idiots who don't appreciate their freedom - therefore, they deserve to have some of it taken away for the sake of a stable society. Who gives a crap of a bunch of hood rats in the inner cities or red necks in trailer parks will get upset ? We need to force the garbage in our society to grow up or starve.

 

Once upon a time in a place called the United States of America, men created a republic founded on the principle that rights and responsibilities are derived from the individual. If you prefer a government like that of the former Soviet Union, where rights and responsibilities are derived from the state and dictated to the individual, then you'll have no problem with the individual mandate and wonder why other people think it is wrong.

Because you don't need health insurance to obtain and pay for ER care.

I don't know if it is utter cluelessness or downright dishonesty, but Leftists can't seem to wrap their brains around the notion that you don't need health insurance to obtain and pay for health care. What's farcical about your pretenses about caring about free-loading is your support for a bill that compels people to subsidize the health insurance and health care of people who aren't paying for it themselves. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you desire an all-powerful government, led by Leftists such as yourself, that rules every aspect of our existence and be done with it?

 

what has been the result of this America ? you have hood rats in the inner cities and billionaire CEOs who have no culture, no compassion for their fellow American - who live by their own rules and laws.

no, the idea of total freedom and believing the individual will do the right thing has failed America. it has led to corruption and exploitation of the weakest among us.

i am well aware that my lack of faith in some humans have resulted in totalitarian regimes, but i do not advocate for that - but i do think the current idea of freedom without state intervention has destroyed our nation. I'm sorry, but I would not lose any sleep if we, the people, cleaned house.

 

For someone who says he has a polisci degree - you seem to understand absolutely nothing about governmental systems or human nature.

Have you read any history? any at all??

You are advocating for totalitarianism - as webbrock said, you're an authoritarian. If you want to be authoritarian in your own household, fine... beat your family down, and force them to bend to your will - but keep it to yourself.

Your desire to control your neighbor b/c you don't like how he lives his life is disgusting and contemptible. I might not like how my neighbor lives his life, or how you live your life - but guess what? it's none of my business - just as how anyone else lives their life is none of your business.

It's called freedom.

 

combine the two, streamline them, get rid of the miss management and as much fraud as possible. And stop the greedy hack politicions from dippin into it when they need extra cash, and presto. Health care solved.

 

the problem is, letting my neighbor live however they choose has lead to this -





and this

 

Won't this new larger agency just suffer from the same problems? If not, why not?

Don't vouchers just solve all the problem over night without a big agency? If so, why waste precious resources on a bunch of pencil pushers when we need doctors, nurses and medicine?

 

Enron....isn't that Paul krugman's old company?

 

So morons acting like morons, and an accident are somehow justification to enslave everyone under the yoke of government tyranny?

Someone started a thread asking if communism was acceptable - utterly amazing how many Amerikans think it is actually a viable consideration.

Stalin's 70+ million murdered; Mao's 200+ million murdered; and the billions imprisoned within the borders of a country... all of that down the memory hole in less than a lifetime??

Wow, just wow... tell me Gramsci wasn't right??

 

We cannot live with this idea that the individual is all that matters, because we are a collective. We have to realize that people's attitudes and behaviors can damage society. If a woman is raising her kids poorly and basically leading them into the gang lifestyle, why shouldn't the government (which is just we the people) make her raise the kid properly ? Why is it wrong to say a society should be a certain way and that those who refuse to let it progress be prevented from being a part of it ? If we are to become that shining city on the hill, we need to flush the crap out of the system.

 

The problem with the Individual Mandate is just what you stated...... Forcing individuals to purchase a product from a PRIVATE COMPANY. Therefore, they can have a field day with their markets! Raise prices, set their own conditions. They can do whatever they WANT when people HAVE to purchase their product.

If people were forced (under penalty of financial reimbursement) to buy my coffee, I'd raise prices 500% and mega-capitalize. Injustice.

 

What about in the real world?

Nice. So who gets to determine what gets taken away from whom? You, I presume? And what makes you that authority? Would you be okay with someone else arbitrarily restricting your freedoms based on what they determined was best "for the sake of a stable society?" Or is this just kind of one of those double standard things?

Also, what about the people who do appreciate their freedom? Do they get an exemption from your tyranny? Since, from what you've said here, your entire position seems to be predicated on ungratefulness. You sound like Jigsaw from the Saw movies; "Those who do not appreciate life do not deserve it."

Well, at least you don't pretend to be compassionate. I'm just curious how you reconcile forcing people to do things "for the greater good" with "forcing the garbage out of our society." Do you not see a rather glaring disconnect there?

I mean, surely your logical brain does. But your emotional brain is writing your posts right now. And it simply doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). I'm just calling you out on it.

 

Virtually nothing is wrong with it.

If a person is allowed to receive healthcare (emergency or otherwise) by law... then I'd say that ALL Americans SHOULD contribute to healthcare costs.

 

No emotion here, dude - just a refusal to excuse sub-human cultures and behavior. It's a white guy thing which I've never understood - you know right is right and what's wrong is wrong but you have sat by for 200 years while your amazing cultures in Europe and here in the US have become infected with a pathetic inner city culture which is destroying your major economic hubs, and you've allowed yourselves to be taken over by rich white sociopaths who have exploited you of your dignity and sold you out.

And all the while you continue infighting trivial things like homosexuality and abortion while your nation is falling to ruin. It's PATHETIC, freaking PATHETIC that a brown skinned American like myself has to be the one to tell you grab your balls and get your spine back.

 

Nobody is making you drive a car. The government pays for all roads via taxes as is agreed upon by both parties. WE both believe in infrastructure spending. So when a person chooses to buy a car and drive on a PUBLIC road the government has every right to enforce laws which PROTECT the rights of all drivers. Among those laws is the state mandate that you must have insurance. The purpose of that law is so that when two people have an accident they will both be equally represented and protected. However there is no law saying you must own a car.

Health insurance is a much different matter. There are no individual rights to protect. If you get cancer it's not going to spread and give someone else cancer. You are not responsible for giving someone else the common flu. It's just part of life. In the last 50 years government has MADE itself more important in the health of people. State laws to pay hospitals for the charges of others is what's put government on the hook. I'm not saying it's an entirely bad law but you HAVE to recognize that we are where we are because of government. We have 50 states with 50 different mandates for coverage. The STATES have tailored the plans bought by people requiring minimum coverage that jacked the price of insurance through the roof. By doing so they forced all people of all ages to commit to one minimum standard rather than allow the market to develop tailored plans for each person. (Some of those laws are good. I have no problem with laws that force insurance companies to make good on their contracts with customers. They should not be able to drop you because you get sick. Part of the governments role is to protect the consumer via property rights ie contracts ect ect.) In reality the only people who benefit from mass minimum coverage laws are the insurance companies. A 50 year old woman is STILL going to have the exact same health problems she would have had at her age with or without state laws forcing her to pay for things like drug rehab, pregnancy, and all other kinds of things she isn't going to suffer from. In truth she should have been able to buy a tailored plan (again contract enforced by the government) which covered things she might need at her age ie cancer, preventative care, and all other things she might eventually suffer from. The ONLY REAL difference government made in the last 50 years was to drive up costs and put money into the pockets of insurance companies. Other than that it's helped a lot of politicians get elected which is why they do it.

I oppose Obamacare because it takes the wrong things the states did..... and makes them national. Obamacare is going to mandate a VAST minimum coverage which will elevate much faster than it did at the state level. Now Grandma is paying for a whole lot more (*)(*)(*)(*) she's not using anyways. Rates are skyrocketing because insurance companies can by nature of the law charge people through the roof for services and nobody can stop them. There is no competition when the government sets the standard. Competition is what creates the tailored custom plans that people actually NEED.

Who do you think wrote the bill? THE INSURANCE LOBBIES WROTE THE WHOLE DAMN THING. Why do you think Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what in it. It's the greatest scam in human history. The Federal Government just mandated every single person in America become a customer of various high end corporations and pay more.... for more services they do not need or would otherwise buy. It's a shaft. The real winners are the companies and the politicians who get the check.

There are a few parts of Obamacare that I like. The government has a role in enforcing contracts and companies have no business cutting people off when they get sick or refusing to pay for services they agreed upon. However that part of the bill is a few pages and the rest is garbage. The real answer to healthcare in America lies in the government strengthening it's role in contracts ect ect but reducing it's role everywhere else. We give half a trillion dollars a year to subsidize employer based health coverage. Why do you think the only REAL way to get cost effective healthcare is through a decent job? Because the government offers a ton of tax incentives and corporate welfare for doing so. I believe the true nature of health insurance in a free market system lies in non profit agencies. Americans don't generally mind free economics. They are all for growth and prosperity. But there are certain things like healthcare that IF given a fair playing field they would certainly CHOOSE to buy non profit. There is very little difference between what a non profit free market healthcare solution would bring and what single payer government care would bring. The only real difference is competition. The non profits would have ot compete for business and thus offer better coverage cheaper. The primary way of doing so comes in contract negotiations with independent hospitals and businesses which results in better service. The government does not do that very well and thus is inefficient and political in nature. If people don't like the idea of profitable insurance companies taking care of their health needs then why in the hell would they be comfortable with politicians doing it? Why not a third option? We don't even have to subsidize non profits. All we need to do is make them tax havens. They are charitable in nature and therefore should never pay taxes. That alone reduces costs tremendously. States can still be involved in minimum coverage's if they so choose. I envision a few companies will offer blanket coverage for all illness and the rates will adjust evenly every month/year based on their costs/income. The government will still have an active role in enforcing contracts. Their role is still to protect the people. But the minute they begin to provide for the people this is what you get. Obamacare is corrupt and expensive. We will NEVER see the return. It will NEVER provide as much as it will cost. The free market solution with a healthy proper government role is much better for everyone.

We need tax free medical savings accounts. Not everyone will contribute but the incentive is there. A significant number of middle class people would jump at the chance to contribute tax free income to part of a retirement package. Even if 40% of the country participates in some way it will benefit the entire country.

I also envision a national charity for the poor. I wouldn't have a single problem if the government set up a charity to help people who cannot pay their medical debts. Companies would readily contribute because it benefits their public relations. People with money will contribute for their own personal goals and desires. In general those three solutions will combine to solve MOST if not all of the healthcare issues in America. It will benefit everyone at every level. The real key to prosperity is mutual cooperation. Considering the fact that Obamacare was absolutely FORCED on half the nation does not make it mutual or cooperative. Instead it makes it more expensive and less efficient.

 

The founding principle ultimately produced the freest and most prosperous country on the planet. The collectivist model that you subscribe to has not only failed everywhere it has been implemented, it has produced some of the most monstrous regimes in human history - regimes that mass-murdered, oppressed and impoverished the unfortunate people who were victimized in the pursuit of their faux-altruistic collectivist utopian fantasies.

I used to read this delusional propaganda in Pravda during the Cold War. Individual freedom and initiative made America the freest and most prosperous nation on earth. Tell me, where is the Soviet Union now? Tell me how the absence of freedom and belief in the state to do the right thing have made socialist countries the greatest success stories in human history.

So has collectivism. Obviously, the problem of corruption and exploitation has more to do with human failings that collectivism/socialism has failed to remedy and never will remedy.

First of all, you don't speak for the people.

Secondly, you're right - it's nihilists who think like you do and get their hands on power who invariably create totalitarian states/societies. Whether you realize and/or advocate it or not, the germ of totalitarianism exists within the seed of collectivism, thus it invariably produces totalitarianism.

Third, we don't live in a nation where there is no state intervention. The truth is, we live in a nation where state intervention has become so pervasive and out-of-control it is destroying our nation, like all the other nations that placed their faith in an all-powerful dictatorial state.
.

 

but what's the other option ? letting wal-mart do whatever it wants to even if it means setting up sweat shops in China, child labor, and paying Americans $7.25/hr with no health insurance ?

 

Well, that's "business", and that helps the rich so it's "overlooked".

 

What laws have Wal Mart broken?

Who is forcing people to work at Wal Mart or shop in their stores?

Here's your other option: If you don't agree with Wal Mart's policies then don't reward them by working for them or shopping in their stores. That's what I do - exercise my freedom of choice. I refuse to shop at Wal Mart - always have.

 

It also helps people buy cheap crap and obtain a job, but that doesn't help the narrative of Left wing frauds, so it's "overlooked".

 

Where does the government get off forcing folk to buy anything? One size fits all health care at an egregious cost is the exact opposite of liberty

 

When it has to spend a big pile of taxpayers money because they don't.

 

No, you confuse government greed with a right to steal from citizens....Though I will admit to feeling better about this mess knowing all those folk who thought they were going to mooch off their neighbors are instead going to get a bill (tax) regardless if they want one.

 

You speak as if we have changed. War and punishment has changed, but humanity as a whole has not. Can you really tell me that similar persecution in relation to the type that you mention doesn't still currently resume today? Look at the current US government and tell me it's different. You're not a visionary for this conclusion, you're in denial.

 

Why should an employer be responsible for an employee's health insurance?