Are political beliefs equal: Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

[emilynghiem]

This is great. Shouldn't all citizens have equal right to CHOOSE the public option based on
if they find it works for them.

Obamacare exchanged, or spiritual healing and charities and teaching hospitals for covering universal care).

In a perfect and ideal world one can cling to that...in the real world compromises have to be made .... in my youth the Government could require me to report for a physical and go fight a war whether I wanted to or not...that is how WW 2 was fought .the draft....if I want to own a car I have to buy car insurance and a tag ...no options on that.... is this a perfect law...of course not...a process of improving it to address issues should occur...but the OCD panic and throwing Freedom as an argument against it is nuts...we compromise all the time all the time....its how we can live in society ...why do we live in societies...its Superior to going at it alone ...

Last I checked, we AGREE to decide car insurance policies PER STATE, where citizens can VOTE ON LAWS and reform them per STATE (not rely on a federal battle through Congress to change state laws), and don't require all people to buy insurance in advance of needing it or else pay a federal fine taken out of your salary. In some states, you can even show ABILITY TO PAY and not be required to buy insurance! So why not allow that for health care, that if people can cover their own health care other ways without imposing on the public, then insurance is optional, but other ways are exempted too.

Wouldn't you say that was excessive if the costs of hospitalizations from car accidents was pushed to a federal level,
and the IRS started imposing a tax penalty on every citizen IN ADVANCE to cover the shortfall?

Wouldn't you say the States should go after the criminals who incurred costs to the public, and not penalize citizens
on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

Do you see the difference between STATE and FEDERAL.

And how much harder it is to reform and represent laws on a FEDERAL level through Congress
than it is to make changes locally on a STATE level.

TyroneSlothrop The reason you don't see people objecting to car insurance policies is we AGREE to those,
on a STATE level where we do have more direct representation.

If this were blown up to a federal level, YES you might see the same objections demanding that this be kept to the states where the people can vote on and change laws more directly! And NOT try to micromanage car insurance through the federal govt when it is better handled locally by state where people can VOTE on and AGREE to the terms, unlike going through Congress.

 

[G.T.]

Emily, READ REALLY SLOW - The people who OPT OUT OF THE MANDATE - - -

BUT STILL DO NOT PAY THEIR HEALTHCARE BILL, yet received CARE.....

What does that do to the cost of care FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO OPTED OUT OF THE MANDATE BUT WANTED TO PAY ON THEIR OWN?

The costs go where? UP.

As costs GO UP.....

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NUMBER ABLE TO AFFORD OPTING OUT OF THE MANDATE?

It goes....DOWN.


WHAT ARE YOU MISSING -

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Last I checked, we AGREE to decide car insurance policies PER STATE, where citizens can VOTE ON LAWS and reform them per STATE costs to the public, and not penalize citizens
on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

Do you see the difference between STATE and FEDERAL.

At both levels State and Federal the principle remains the same ...one must compromise to resolve difficult issues.....at the Federal level one still has political representation...

its not an argument that moves me off my square...

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, READ REALLY SLOW - The people who OPT OUT OF THE MANDATE - - -

BUT STILL DO NOT PAY THEIR HEALTHCARE BILL, yet received CARE.....

What does that do to the cost of care FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO OPTED OUT OF THE MANDATE BUT WANTED TO PAY ON THEIR OWN?

The costs go where? UP.

As costs GO UP.....

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE NUMBER ABLE TO AFFORD OPTING OUT OF THE MANDATE?

It goes....DOWN.


WHAT ARE YOU MISSING -

You act like this way is the only way to pay for health care.
It's not.

There are many other programs and ways of providing health care
that could be exemptions also besides insurance.

Everyone could be required to pick a track and stick to it,
WITHOUT dictating how that track covers its members.

The govt is trying to dictate the track for everyone, and that doesn't work.
People don't agree on prochoice and prolife, and don't agree on the
right to life or right to health care. So it makes more sense to separate these tracks
and not try to force one size fits all.

Separate the tracks first, let people develop their own programs,
PROVE THEY WORK FIRST (instead of arguing on faith based BELIEF in one system over another)
AND LET PEOPLE CHOOSE.

You cannot prove to me that "mandating insurance" is the only way to cover all people and all costs.

If people can be trusted to choose NOT to have abortions, NOT to get addicted to alcohol,
NOT to commit rape or sexual abuse by having sex outside of marriage, but these things remain FREE CHOICE
why can't the choice of insurance remain a free choice?

If you are trying to go after costs, why go after lawabiding taxpayers except for convenience of hitting easy targets?

Why not go after criminals who cost taxpayers far more money by
* shooting people and dumping the hospital costs on the public for preventable crimes
* committing other premeditated crimes that cost taxpayers for prosecution and incarceration
and dump welfare costs on the public when families lose a breadwinner to murder or imprisonment
* corporations that create environmental health hazards and dump costs on the public for that

Why not go after the guilty parties that can be PROVEN THROUGH DUE PROCESS to deserve to lose liberties
and pay restitution to cover costs they ACTUALLY INCURRED.

This seems like political laziness.

Instead of going after the people incurring the costs, it is just easier federally to tax all working citizens with a salary
who are lawabiding enough to file tax returns. So it is punishing the law abiding and STILL NOT GOING AFTER
the people who incur extra costs on the public.

 

[G.T.]

Oh so now youre ok with MANDATING a track to pay.

Just not WHICH track?

 

[emilynghiem]

Last I checked, we AGREE to decide car insurance policies PER STATE, where citizens can VOTE ON LAWS and reform them per STATE costs to the public, and not penalize citizens
on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

Do you see the difference between STATE and FEDERAL.

At both levels State and Federal the principle remains the same ...one must compromise to resolve difficult issues.....at the Federal level one still has political representation...

its not an argument that moves me off my square...

^ have you ever tried changing a state law versus a federal law?

With a state law, let's say you live in Rhode Island versus living in Texas.
You don't think that makes a difference?

If 50 states that are all split 50/50 are all trying to make a federal law covering all states,
you don't think that is any different from the population of one state working out issues and passing a state policy?

Really TyroneSlothrop

In Houston, if I have to go lobby in Austin, that's a 3 hour drive.
I know more people who have written or cowritten state laws
and only one person who cowrote a federal law that passed through HUD and has never been enforced
because the process is unaccessible to the average person.

Have you ever looked into either process to make such a statement they are the SAME???
Do you have ANY IDEA of the difference between going through STATE court to contest an issue of
state law versus FEDERAL COURT to contest an issue of FEDERAL LAW. I can't even get to that level.

I may never be able to go to Congress and get on any list to lobby or present at a hearing.
I would be competing with 50 other states, all with their own citizens and party leaders competing for that window.

What are you saying???

This is really critical, Tyrone, to know the difference between
State legislatures. courts and reps
vs Federal level courts and Congress.

No wonder people don't know they have given up their rights.
If you don't know the difference, you are letting politicians buy your vote by party,
and not watching what is happening with either state or federal if you treat all govt the same.

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh so now youre ok with MANDATING a track to pay.

Just not WHICH track?

Right. if the point is not to impose costs on the public in ways they don't agree to pay,
then the federal govt can require people to commit to a track, so whatever way you choose to cover the shortfall
you agree to that track and don't impose on people who want to pay using another track.

That is minimal restriction, and leaves the rest to the States, people and/or parties to work out.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Last I checked, we AGREE to decide car insurance policies PER STATE, where citizens can VOTE ON LAWS and reform them per STATE costs to the public, and not penalize citizens
on a FEDERAL LEVEL.

Do you see the difference between STATE and FEDERAL.

At both levels State and Federal the principle remains the same ...one must compromise to resolve difficult issues.....at the Federal level one still has political representation...

its not an argument that moves me off my square...

^ have you ever tried changing a state law versus a federal law?
.

It has to be a federal law because that is the only way to spread the cost among all the population....

 

[boedicca]

Answer to the OP: No.

Any other questions?

 

[G.T.]

Oh so now youre ok with MANDATING a track to pay.

Just not WHICH track?

Right. if the point is not to impose costs on the public in ways they don't agree to pay,
then the federal govt can require people to commit to a track, so whatever way you choose to cover the shortfall
you agree to that track and don't impose on people who want to pay using another track.

That is minimal restriction, and leaves the rest to the States, people and/or parties to work out.

Oh but what of all the people who find it "unconstitutional" to be forced to pick a track at all, hmm?

 

[Flopper]

The Health Insurance Mandate Is It Involuntary Servitude Marque s Letters
Are insurance mandates a masked form of involuntary servitude?

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance - CSMonitor.com
Can the federal govt make it a crime not to buy insurance?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=facpub
Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

Furthermore, the A group is pushing this belief without any Constitutional Amendment voted on by States or people, whereas the B group believes in Constitutional limits and checks on govt, where an Amendment is required before granting authority to federal govt to manage health care, much less mandate taxes that are going to semi-private insurance instead of paying for public services directly under govt.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Are beliefs really equal, or does the govt have the right to impose one belief over another
by vote of Congress or ruling by Courts?

Isn't this in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, or the Civil Rights Act, to
make one creed favored and exempted by govt, while fining and penalizing members of other beliefs?

I am organizing Constitutional arguments about ACA on a forum, along with a petition that ACA is unconstitutional, and needs to be separated by Party, in order to allow equal exercise of beliefs without imposing one over the other through govt.

If you have good links that explain what is wrong with ACA or how to fix it, please post here. Thanks!

Involuntary Servitude is the condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

The insurance mandate may be wrong in your opinion but it's not involuntary servitude because the labor being preformed to pay for the insurance is not for the benefit of another person.

Legal Definition of Involuntary Servitude Peonage

A. The PENALTY for not having insurance goes into FEDERAL programs,
NOT the program of the person's choice.

So it is TAKING AWAY from the person's ability to invest in other means
by forcing it into the federal public option TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

B. The whole point of the insurance is to pool the money together
TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE. To have the healthy people paying in advance
to pay for people who need help now.

What are you talking about?

The insurance redistributes the money to pay for immediate costs,
while the people who don't need it yet are still required to pay in.

What do you think people are arguing about?

That's the whole complaint about the mandates making the only two choices
A. paying for insurance even if you don't want or need it yet or don't agree to the terms
B. paying a 1 2 3% and up fine into FEDERAL GOVT to pay for the general pool
even if you don't agree with this being mandatory and believe the public option should be VOLUNTARY to participate in

If this bill respected everyone's rights to fund their own health care it would include all other options:
A. exemptions for investing in teaching hospitals, medical programs or other means of providing health care
besides insurance
B. paying for health care directly even if you do or do not use insurance to cover your costs

There is no reason to restrict the exemptions to just insurance only.

This is similar to prolife arguments that just want to ban abortions as the "only way to prevent it"
when there are many ways to prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE instead of relying on govt to restrict the
choice to "prolife only" and restrict any other choice.

Sorry but I find it politically discriminatory and unbalanced in bias
to DEMAND free choice and no govt interference when it comes to abortion,
but turn around and DEMAND that govt regulate health care and penalize free choice!

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Health Insurance Mandate Is It Involuntary Servitude Marque s Letters
Are insurance mandates a masked form of involuntary servitude?

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance - CSMonitor.com
Can the federal govt make it a crime not to buy insurance?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=facpub
Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

Furthermore, the A group is pushing this belief without any Constitutional Amendment voted on by States or people, whereas the B group believes in Constitutional limits and checks on govt, where an Amendment is required before granting authority to federal govt to manage health care, much less mandate taxes that are going to semi-private insurance instead of paying for public services directly under govt.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Are beliefs really equal, or does the govt have the right to impose one belief over another
by vote of Congress or ruling by Courts?

Isn't this in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, or the Civil Rights Act, to
make one creed favored and exempted by govt, while fining and penalizing members of other beliefs?

I am organizing Constitutional arguments about ACA on a forum, along with a petition that ACA is unconstitutional, and needs to be separated by Party, in order to allow equal exercise of beliefs without imposing one over the other through govt.

If you have good links that explain what is wrong with ACA or how to fix it, please post here. Thanks!

Involuntary Servitude is the condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

The insurance mandate may be wrong in your opinion but it's not involuntary servitude because the labor being preformed to pay for the insurance is not for the benefit of another person.

Legal Definition of Involuntary Servitude Peonage

A. The PENALTY for not having insurance goes into FEDERAL programs,
NOT the program of the person's choice.

So it is TAKING AWAY from the person's ability to invest in other means
by forcing it into the federal public option TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

B. The whole point of the insurance is to pool the money together
TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE. To have the healthy people paying in advance
to pay for people who need help now.

What are you talking about?

The insurance redistributes the money to pay for immediate costs,
while the people who don't need it yet are still required to pay in.

What do you think people are arguing about?

That's the whole complaint about the mandates making the only two choices
A. paying for insurance even if you don't want or need it yet or don't agree to the terms
B. paying a 1 2 3% and up fine into FEDERAL GOVT to pay for the general pool
even if you don't agree with this being mandatory and believe the public option should be VOLUNTARY to participate in

If this bill respected everyone's rights to fund their own health care it would include all other options:
A. exemptions for investing in teaching hospitals, medical programs or other means of providing health care
besides insurance
B. paying for health care directly even if you do or do not use insurance to cover your costs

There is no reason to restrict the exemptions to just insurance only.

This is similar to prolife arguments that just want to ban abortions as the "only way to prevent it"
when there are many ways to prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE instead of relying on govt to restrict the
choice to "prolife only" and restrict any other choice.

Sorry but I find it politically discriminatory and unbalanced in bias
to DEMAND free choice and no govt interference when it comes to abortion,
but turn around and DEMAND that govt regulate health care and penalize free choice!

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

Dear Flopper I think your line of reasoning aligns with the
Conservatives who would agree on having catastrophic insurance,
but draw the line at NOT assuming federal govt has the authority to regulate ALL ASPECTS of health care.

If you can separate the two, you might find more reasonable grounds in line with conservatives.
but lumping them together, that causes outright objection and won't likely get anywhere.

 

[G.T.]

You are arguing over minutia and changing it from no mandate to some sort of mandate just not the one you dont like.

The idea was a failure from the beginning, and if you understood my first response youda saved yourself assloads of time

 

[dblack]

It has to be a federal law because that is the only way to spread the cost among all the population....

Only if that's your goal.

 

[Flopper]

The Health Insurance Mandate Is It Involuntary Servitude Marque s Letters
Are insurance mandates a masked form of involuntary servitude?

Can Obama force you to buy health insurance - CSMonitor.com
Can the federal govt make it a crime not to buy insurance?

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1862&context=facpub
Turning Citizens into Subjects: Why the Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

With francoHFW I ran into this same "clash of beliefs" again:
A. Leftwing views pushing the BELIEF that "health care is a right" to the extreme of
automatically seeing it as an inherent right through govt, and overriding any choices or beliefs otherwise.
B. Rightwing views that medical equipment, resources, materials and services are NOT free but require SOMEONE'S labor (either directly, or paid for using money they earned by their own labor); so that this remains a free choice to voluntarily donate or serve others, but cannot be mandated. So if the left wants this to be free, they can volunteer their own labor and money, but have no right to impose this BELIEF through govt that mandates EVERYONE be forced under a public system when people naturally have free choice to provide health care in other ways as they VOLUNTEER to serve others.

Furthermore, the A group is pushing this belief without any Constitutional Amendment voted on by States or people, whereas the B group believes in Constitutional limits and checks on govt, where an Amendment is required before granting authority to federal govt to manage health care, much less mandate taxes that are going to semi-private insurance instead of paying for public services directly under govt.

So why are the BELIEFS of the A group allowed to dominate the narrative?

Why isn't there equal respect, inclusion, protection and representation of the BELIEFS of the B group?

Are beliefs really equal, or does the govt have the right to impose one belief over another
by vote of Congress or ruling by Courts?

Isn't this in violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments, or the Civil Rights Act, to
make one creed favored and exempted by govt, while fining and penalizing members of other beliefs?

I am organizing Constitutional arguments about ACA on a forum, along with a petition that ACA is unconstitutional, and needs to be separated by Party, in order to allow equal exercise of beliefs without imposing one over the other through govt.

If you have good links that explain what is wrong with ACA or how to fix it, please post here. Thanks!

Involuntary Servitude is the condition of compulsory service or labor performed by one person, against his will, for the benefit of another person due to force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and compulsion directed against him.

The insurance mandate may be wrong in your opinion but it's not involuntary servitude because the labor being preformed to pay for the insurance is not for the benefit of another person.

Legal Definition of Involuntary Servitude Peonage

A. The PENALTY for not having insurance goes into FEDERAL programs,
NOT the program of the person's choice.

So it is TAKING AWAY from the person's ability to invest in other means
by forcing it into the federal public option TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

B. The whole point of the insurance is to pool the money together
TO PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE. To have the healthy people paying in advance
to pay for people who need help now.

What are you talking about?

The insurance redistributes the money to pay for immediate costs,
while the people who don't need it yet are still required to pay in.

What do you think people are arguing about?

That's the whole complaint about the mandates making the only two choices
A. paying for insurance even if you don't want or need it yet or don't agree to the terms
B. paying a 1 2 3% and up fine into FEDERAL GOVT to pay for the general pool
even if you don't agree with this being mandatory and believe the public option should be VOLUNTARY to participate in

If this bill respected everyone's rights to fund their own health care it would include all other options:
A. exemptions for investing in teaching hospitals, medical programs or other means of providing health care
besides insurance
B. paying for health care directly even if you do or do not use insurance to cover your costs

There is no reason to restrict the exemptions to just insurance only.

This is similar to prolife arguments that just want to ban abortions as the "only way to prevent it"
when there are many ways to prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE instead of relying on govt to restrict the
choice to "prolife only" and restrict any other choice.

Sorry but I find it politically discriminatory and unbalanced in bias
to DEMAND free choice and no govt interference when it comes to abortion,
but turn around and DEMAND that govt regulate health care and penalize free choice!

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

Dear Flopper I think your line of reasoning aligns with the
Conservatives who would agree on having catastrophic insurance,
but draw the line at NOT assuming federal govt has the authority to regulate ALL ASPECTS of health care.

If you can separate the two, you might find more reasonable grounds in line with conservatives.
but lumping them together, that causes outright objection and won't likely get anywhere.

According to healthcare.gov, people under 30 and people with “hardship exemptions” may buy a "catastrophic" health plan now. The number of catastrophic plans are increasing. I think within a few years these plans will be available to everyone.

As healthcare coverage nears 100%, I think we're going to see some changes. Essential all primary coverage goals of healthcare reform, have been met or close to it. Currently, 87% of the population now has healthcare coverage and within a few years it will be well over 90%. Preexisting conditions, yearly maximums, and life time maximums, are all a thing the past.

There are many small changes in the law that will reduce costs without reducing coverage but to seriously reduce cost without reducing coverage, we going to have fix the healthcare system itself not the insurance. At the top of list has be better coordination of services for the seriously ill. Today, 5% of the population is responsible for 50% of the healthcare costs. What is needed is more focused cost-containment strategies and better coordination of benefits. In theory, the family doctor, the primary care doctor should be the one that coordinates all services for the seriously ill. In reality the primary care doctor is at best just a gatekeeper for the insurance company. Instead of the primary care doctor becoming the central figure in a serious illness, he steps back and leaves all the care to the specialists and often the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing which means poorer quality of service and higher costs.

Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[danielpalos]

Healthcare to promote the general welfare must always be better than willful blindness to a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

danielpalos
1. What if you can achieve the same effect or better but with WILLFUL choices?
Isn't that better
2. NOTE: this is the same argument I use when prolife people feel that the life of the child
is MORE important than the free choice of the mother

I argue that these prolife people are CHOOSING to be prolife by CHOICE
NOT BY FORCE OF LAW

Isn't it superior to make the choice by EDUCATION and FREE WILL as they do?
So my argument is you can prevent abortion by FREE CHOICE, and regulating it by law is NOT the only way.

So if that can be done by FREE WILL
why not health care choices in general?

Aren't you contradicting prochoice arguments that people can make responsible decisions on their own
without GOVT FORCING THEM one way or the other.

It is more about equal application of the law. Why should only the least wealthy be denied and disparaged in their privileges and immunities especially under our form of Capitalism?

 

[emilynghiem]

It is more about equal application of the law. Why should only the least wealthy be denied and disparaged in their privileges and immunities especially under our form of Capitalism?

Why not allow other choices of serving people? danielpalos
Examples
1. reforming prisons to cut costs by converting correction centers into
treatment centers for prevention and cure. Then taking resources saved
and invest that in building more teaching hospitals, where interns and residents
earn their medical education by serving in public health. So this cuts costs
while producing more service providers and training, and investing in facilities.
And does not require mandating insurance.
Though it may require people who have criminal convictions to work to
pay back their costs as part of their restitution owed for crimes.

2. allowing tax exemptions for building charity hospitals or
setting up campus for Veterans to obtain jobs, education and training
in managing health care and housing for Vets, and other elderly, disabled and
mental ill or others in need.

I actually combined several proposals into a model for setting up such Veteran
education and training through a campus: http://www.freedmenstown.com

Why can't those be an equal option for taxpayers to invest in, instead of either insurance or paying into federal exchanges as the only choices?

 

[Politico]

Health care isn't being "mandated."

LOL yes it is. Well at least the fines are.

 

[dblack]

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Not if you actually listen to the argument. The point isn't to match a legal definition or find some constitutional loophole to undermine the law. The point is to question the premise that government should have that kind of authority over our personal decisions.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

The argument isn't silly at all. I take it very seriously. The question touches on fundamental issues of individual rights. The fact that millions of Americans have indulged a "solution" for financing their healthcare that isn't viable shouldn't force the rest of us to follow their lead.

 

[G.T.]

The question being raised by the thread was Can health care be mandated without imposing involuntary servitude?

Since mandating the purchase of healthcare insurance does not meet the legal definition of involuntary servitude, it can't be argued that it's involuntary servitude and it must be argued on different basis. Holding that paying a penalty to the government is involuntary servitude is really grasping at straws.

Not if you actually listen to the argument. The point isn't to match a legal definition or find some constitutional loophole to undermine the law. The point is to question the premise that government should have that kind of authority over our personal decisions.

Arguing that one should be free to choose to carry health insurance or not is rather silly. In this day and age an illness or accident can created millions of dollars in medical bills that you would have no hope of paying forcing the care providers or government to absorb those costs. Now that is wrong. Without the mandate, irresponsible people would continue to refuse to carry insurance and leave the bills to the rest of us to pay.

The argument isn't silly at all. I take it very seriously. The question touches on fundamental issues of individual rights. The fact that millions of Americans have indulged a "solution" for financing their healthcare that isn't viable shouldn't force the rest of us to follow their lead.

adequate healthcare is necessary to sustain your very life, it's hardly a choice.

if you break your leg and the bone comes out, you gunna bleed out, bro?

tell us more.

to call whether or not you need healthcare a "choice" is remarkable, to me.

now, choosing what kind of care you want/get, there are tons of options if you've actually looked - and there's no mandate on WHICH one you choose.

EVERYone needs healthcare the same as everyone needs defense - it just IS.