HCR Passes

[Alex]

The private transit companies that didn't exist everywhere and only were affordable because they had free use of publicly subsidized thoroughfares.

It's all entwined.

2) The requirement for car insurance is more about protecting the other drivers on the road.......protection for yourself is usually optional(at least it is in my state).

You could argue that the individual mandate is the same. You are free to decline all the medical treatment you want, but the rest of society is inoculated against a sudden change of heart when you get cancer and decide that maybe you'd really like treatment even if you can't afford it.

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

"Forcing" people to pay an extra amount every month, one that is not already being paid via deductions from people's paychecks (on a percentage basis, so it rises and falls with income - taxes), is going to cause hardship. And you can throw out all the arguments about responsibility and keeping up with bills that you want, but many Americans have difficulty with this, and will have difficulty with this. If we're creating something universal, let's just let it be through taxes and just plain old COVERED.

I'm not sure see any difference between what you say is a hardship in that first sentence and what is ok in the last sentence.

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Are we wrong? Did we or did we not lose liberties today? Were our rights to our property expanded or contracted today? At what point would you say government has gone too far?

It's a difficult question and unless the goal is a Libertarian paradise not one where it is easy to draw the line. Is a truly Libertarian Paradise your preference? If so then we've reduced the discussion to the basic philosophical difference which can't be overcome.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm not sure see any difference between what you say is a hardship in that first sentence and what is ok in the last sentence.

This is a fair question, allow me to try to explain it better:

The hardship comes when paying for insurance is a separate bill, rather than being folded into income taxes. The government knows people aren't good at paying their bills, that's why they insist on taking taxes out of people's income before a paycheck is cut. Yet they think they can "add" a bill for multiple hundreds of dollars per month, and mandate it legally. That's why the single-payer option is a better idea. Sure, it'll mean a tax increase, but I think that's the "easier" way to get people to pay for it.

The problem is, this really does mean that everyone will have government insurance, and quite rightly, it freaks out the Republicans and Libertarians. It even freaks me out, but I think the benefit outweighs the cost in this instance. I've said before that the plan I favor would be a government-provided minimum coverage (like Medicare), with the option for citizens to purchase privately-supplied supplemental insurance. That way, people who fear "standing in line for care" will be provided with a way out, or a way to choose the best doctors, whose price might require extra fees and/or insurance to cover.

And I acknowledge that this means there must be some requirement for doctors to accept a certain number of patients at the government minimum, in order to be able to charge the other patients more.

The good news here is that if employers want to be seen as providing good benefits, they can still buy the supplemental coverage for their employees, but overall it will probably cost the employers less than paying for the current full coverage (with employees still footing huge bills to pay their portion)

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

It's a difficult question and unless the goal is a Libertarian paradise not one where it is easy to draw the line. Is a truly Libertarian Paradise your preference?

Let's just say if a Truly Libertarian Paradise is Miami and outright Totalitarianism is Seattle my preference would be to live in Memphis, not Walla Walla.