Mandatory Insurance is Wrong

[Luddly Neddite]

dblack wrote

And if I do that you can penalize me. The premise of mandatory insurance is that I will [not pay my bill], and that I should be punished for it in advance

Note that my understanding of your words is inside the [] and italicized. Do you agree that THAT is what you meant?

Personally, I think insurance of any and all kinds STINKS. But, I also believe its necessary because we really have not guarantee that (editorial) "you" will pay your bills. Just like the car insurance example, which is indeed appropriate, if you hit my car with your car and you are at fault, how do I know you will pay for the damage you caused?

Now we're getting somewhere. You've hit the nail on the head. This is the reason I started the thread!

You're right, we're not guaranteed that someone else won't do something that will cause us problems. That is the risk of living in a free society. It's the desire for that illusory, ironclad security that is leading us to piss away our freedom and acquiesce to totalitarian government. It leads us into indulging 'preventative law' that, instead of punishing people who do wrong, seeks to make it impossible for people to do wrong in the first place. But that approach is antithetical to freedom.

And what would you call it if I don't get paid for the damage you did to my car?

Or, if I'm a doctor, a hospital, what do you call it when I get stiffed for the bill you said you would pay? You said I should "penalize" you for non-pymt but if you're ignoring the bill, why would I believe you will pay any more attention to a "penalty"?

If you don't pay me for my services or my product, you are taking my freedom away.

You don't have that right. More to the point, how long will I be able to stay in business if I'm not paid? How will I get to work if you don't pay for the damage to my car?

 

[dblack]

And what would you call it if I don't get paid for the damage you did to my car?

A crime? Same as if broke into your house and robbed you. Should I also be required to carry "burglary insurance", in case I get in a thieving mood?

Or, if I'm a doctor, a hospital, what do you call it when I get stiffed for the bill you said you would pay? You said I should "penalize" you for non-pymt but if you're ignoring the bill, why would I believe you will pay any more attention to a "penalty"?

I might not. That's why it's crucial that doctors and hospital be able to make their own call on when and to whom they will extend credit. That's why laws like EMTALA are poison.

 

[emilynghiem]

The reason we have government in the first place is to deal with the risks of living in a free society. Outsourcing that job to private companies by mandating that citizens purchase insurance is a corruption of the social contract. If people are engaging in behavior that poses an unacceptable risk to others, then make that behavior illegal. Otherwise, leave them alone. If and when they harm someone else, hold them accountable. Prepaid punishment for crimes we may never commit is insane.

I agree this is overreaching and outside the Constitutional purpose and intent of govt and the commerce clause; even to call it taxation is wrong because it is not paying for the services through govt.

Solving the issue of health care funding will come from states stopping the waste of public resources on the failed criminal justice and mental health systems that are bankrupting the budgets. By reforming those systems, health care and education can pay for themselves through sustainable servive internships integrated into housing communities and schools.

So we wouldn't even be having this debate if these problems were fixed on the state level.
To try to force it on the federal govt to mandate is an attempted shortcut, but there are no shortcuts to fixing the problems we have. We need to address the problems of govt waste, locally first, in order to fund health care and other social programs correctly and effectively, not abusing the law by trying to mandate from the top down. The problems have risen from the ground up, and should be fixed that way, in order to build practical solutions on a sustainable solid foundation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear LN and DB:
Why stop there. Why not require hospital and prison costs to be paid BY the people who commited crimes to invoke these costs; or paid by their insurance if they can't afford the damages they caused. Wouldn't it pay for health care if taxpayers didn't have to pay 50K or more per year for every person in prison who commits a crime to get there?

Why not charge back all the costs of corporate bailouts back to the private profiteers.
Why charge debts and interests to taxpayers? Why not make all govt leaders and lenders take out insurance to cover losses instead of charging to taxpayers to pay the bill?

dblack wrote

Note that my understanding of your words is inside the [] and italicized. Do you agree that THAT is what you meant?

Personally, I think insurance of any and all kinds STINKS. But, I also believe its necessary because we really have not guarantee that (editorial) "you" will pay your bills. Just like the car insurance example, which is indeed appropriate, if you hit my car with your car and you are at fault, how do I know you will pay for the damage you caused?

Now we're getting somewhere. You've hit the nail on the head. This is the reason I started the thread!

You're right, we're not guaranteed that someone else won't do something that will cause us problems. That is the risk of living in a free society. It's the desire for that illusory, ironclad security that is leading us to piss away our freedom and acquiesce to totalitarian government. It leads us into indulging 'preventative law' that, instead of punishing people who do wrong, seeks to make it impossible for people to do wrong in the first place. But that approach is antithetical to freedom.

And what would you call it if I don't get paid for the damage you did to my car?

Or, if I'm a doctor, a hospital, what do you call it when I get stiffed for the bill you said you would pay? You said I should "penalize" you for non-pymt but if you're ignoring the bill, why would I believe you will pay any more attention to a "penalty"?

If you don't pay me for my services or my product, you are taking my freedom away.

You don't have that right. More to the point, how long will I be able to stay in business if I'm not paid? How will I get to work if you don't pay for the damage to my car?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you believe in the social contract claptrap you cannot assert that anything the government does violates it. Even Locke's version of social contract implies that the government exist naturally. Government is imposed on us by others, it is not natural.

I'm not leaning on any social contract theory. Just commenting that my grant of sovereignty is to government, not insurance companies.

"...my grant of sovereignty is to government,..."

Nope.


The only entity that the people have agreed to be governed by is the United States Constitution.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Emily, your "why stop there?" post is just silly. And, the constant sound of people saying everything should be done at the state level ignores how much more expensive it would be on an individual level.

That's what is always ignored - how much more various programs would cost the individual tax payers.

Government should serve the people.

pubpots believe it should serve the 1%.

 

[dblack]

Emily, your "why stop there?" post is just silly. And, the constant sound of people saying everything should be done at the state level ignores how much more expensive it would be on an individual level.

That's what is always ignored - how much more various programs would cost the individual tax payers.

Yes freedom often costs more, and it's not easy to achieve, but I think it's worth aiming for. This is why I balk at the idea of government being run like a business. It's fine to push for government that works as efficiently, but begs the question, "efficiently achieving what goals?" - how can we judge a government's relative efficiency? I certainly don't think it should be measured solely, or even primarily, in financial terms.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Why do some people just not get it? Do they truly lack comprehensive skills or are they just shit stirrers?

If it's the case of the former, I'll explain: EVERY FOOKIN ONE OF YOU WILL WIND UP IN THE ER.

That's right. By the time you're old enough to draw Medicare, you'll have made at least 3 trips to the emergency room. On at least one of those visits you will have a surgical procedure. There's even odds that at least once you'll be in the hospital overnight. You will have had at least 1 MRI. You will definitely have x-rays. Multiply that by two if you're married. Multiply it by six for each child you have.

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

What blows my mind about the Obamacare argument is that the wingnuts that don't want to feed poor people think that everyone else should pay the wingnuts' medical bills.

What don't you get about that fact that we already have a law requiring car insurance and hundreds of thousands of people still drive without it because they cant afford it? How on earth is making a law requiring health insurance going to make it easier for those who already can't afford health insurance?

Forcing Americans to purchase a product .... OR pay a fine/penalty - collectable by the IRS - that's stuff the dark side of the Twilight Zone is made of. wowzers!

 

[JohnA]

Actually, the first statement says "we" should pay your bill in advance and then "penalize" you.

what???



I've never said I should be able to 'run a tab' on my health care bill. But likewise, you aren't - or shouldn't be - forced to carry health insurance.

Grandma said -

If you aren't insured then you'll have thousands of dollars worth of bills. If you refuse to pay them your bill gets paid by the rest of us.

And if I do that you can penalize me. The premise of mandatory insurance is that I will, and that I should be punished for it in advance.

In other words, you should be allowed to run a tab because you SAY you will pay.

How many people should be allowed to get free health care because they SAID they would pay later?

While we're waiting for all of you who SAY you're good for your bill to actually PAY your bill, who is paying higher insurance rates and higher hospital costs because all those who are dishonest DO NOT pay?

Are there other products or services that allow you to do that?

For example, you can't go to the grocery store, load up and then say, "Don't worry, I'm good for it. I'll pay later."

Why should you be able to do that with health care?

when it comes to health care dont assume that every person in their life will get a very large health care bill . like every weak argument using the exception as the rule does,nt work most of us are lucky to be reasonably healthy and will live to a old age .
for those that are unfortunatly enough to require expensive health treatment there is this .......

.,most hospitals have some form of payment plan (usually interest free if you pay on time ) of course you cant just say ill pay later '
do you work and let you boss agree to *pay you later *? do you run a business/offer services and let the customer *pay later * ? why should i be forced to pay your bill cus you *cant or will not * should i pay more for my groceries cus you didnt pay for yours ?socialism gone wild

not against insurance i think to edge you bets as to whether you may need to make a claim in the future and buy it is a personal choice not to be mandated by suits in washington . same with employers if they choose to offer health insurance to their employees good for them should they HAVE TO NO or pay a penalty for not doing so .

like they can sell their goods at any price they choose also NOT to have sales or give credit the public will decide if they survive or not, govt interferance only stiffles those with competative and innovative ideas maybe big govt should mandate how much you should earn and not leave it to employer /employee neg how many agree with that ?
if you are going to mandate what the employer* must * offer as benefits why not mandate what the employee *must *get as compensation?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The ACA itself specifically states the government may not criminally punish anyone for failing to pay the penalty. Its the law.

Then how is exactly are they going to enforce it and where is this allegedly written into the law?

 

[Grandma]

It's written as a subpart of the penalty clause. The IRS cannot collect the penalty nor make any laws towards collecting the penalty.

 

[dblack]

It's written as a subpart of the penalty clause. The IRS cannot collect the penalty nor make any laws towards collecting the penalty.

Yes. This is known as "bullshit". Do you really believe Congress intends for the mandate to go unenforced?

 

[Grandma]

It's in there. Look it up.

 

[dblack]

It's in there. Look it up.

Yes. It's "in there", It's also bullshit. I'll ask again, do you believe this means the mandate will go unenforced?