HCR Passes

[BarTopDancer]

If people without medical insurance are 100% responsible for their bills (and they aren't pawned off on the taxpayer) then I have no issue with not forcing people to buy medical insurance. Since that won't happen everyone should be forced to contribute something to get some sort of coverage or pay an opt out fine and stay the hell out of the emergency rooms and don't seek doctors care if you can't afford to pay the bill.

As it is, there will still be people without insurance. The homeless and illegal aliens (who rightfully so this new policy does not cover - if you're not here legally you shouldn't get access to our programs) are two groups off the top of my head.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Or, to elaborate further, and to actually answer your question, it's to counter act the argument that "this is a socialist program, therefore it is by definition evil." Whether there are reasons this specific socialist program is bad is indeed a question that should be up for debate, however much of the opposition never goes further than "It's a government takeover!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills!!!" And when arguing that point, yes, pointing out socialist programs that exist, work, and are considered by no one to be evil is a valid counter, and disproves the argument.

[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.

[innerSpaceman]

Essentially it's a tax masquerading as a law. Eventually, I hope, it will become an actual tax. But of course, the government requiring you by law to spend money on something against your will is a tax, by whatever name it's called.

It's perfectly within my rights, scaeagles, to pay my income taxes in April of the following year when they are due and can properly be assessed, and not a moment before. But go ahead and try that.

[Alex]

But how are you drawing that bright solid line? Especially when it looks like every step taken away from Miami gets labeled as Seattle? Or it is claimed we already live in Boise.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

But how are you drawing that bright solid line? Especially when it looks like every step taken away from Miami gets labeled as Seattle? Or it is claimed we already live in Boise.

Maybe not Boise, but certainly no further East than Wyoming....

If only there were some sort of document, respected by all of our lawmakers limiting .......sigh.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Maybe not Boise, but certainly no further East than Wyoming....

If only there were some sort of document, respected by all of our lawmakers limiting .......sigh.

Oh, you mean that thing that Bush completely forgot about disregarded?

[Alex]

So on balance, if it were a simple either/or choice. Would you prefer a universal mandate to purchase private insurance or a government-run single payer system?