Question

[slackjawed]

I am against the mandate for the reason that I was not helped by conventional healthcare, at all.
I no longer use a regular doctor. I was told years ago I would be lucky to live six months, and then the doctors at UC davis did their damnedest to make it come true.
I use holistic practitioners, and even go to Mexico to do it.
Haven't seen a US doctor in almost three years, and, I am MUCH BETTER OFF FOR IT!!!!!!

And, just so you know, I paid my bills, almost 12000 bucks for the privalage of being an experiment.....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Is it better to tax the people for the money to cover the money lost by the problem I described earlier or to require that they buy private insurance of their choice?

Or should we cease sending money to hospitals and watch prices skyrocket and the poor go without treatment?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

I oppose both...

Both mandates are in conflict with our individual freedoms...government forcing people to purchase things is just another form of slavery...in the form of excessive taxation...

First you must buy auto insurance....then health insurance....what's next?....carbon footprint insurance....?

And as for the "privilege" of driving....what a load....we the people OWN those roads...not the insurance companies...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

No, because mandating that people have health insurance isn't comparable to mandating liability car insurance. The first is to protect the insured, and the second is to protect others FROM the insured. It would be more correctly comparable to mandating that people buy comprehensive insurance, to cover THEIR OWN damages, which I don't consider any more the government's business than I do their health care decisions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's not what financial responsibility laws regarding auto insurance are meant to address.

Auto liability insurance is not for your vehicle, it's for the property you damage while using it, or the people you injure.

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

So explain to me how you're going to protect me from those people. Whether I'm paying because my tax dollars fund the ER or I'm paying because my tax dollars are giving them comprehensive health coverage, I'M still paying. You haven't protected ME in the slightest. You've just made it easier for THEM to take my money.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I still get treatment, and a bill, whether I can pay it or not.

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

Yeah, but does anyone REALLY think the government is going to force those people to foot the entire bill for their own health insurance? If they were going to do that, they'd stop subsidizing their ER visits and make them pay the bills themselves. But they don't do that, do they? You mandate that people have health insurance whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, and what's going to happen is that a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is going to have to be established. So eureka! I'm still paying for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

I oppose both...

Both mandates are in conflict with our individual freedoms...government forcing people to purchase things is just another form of slavery...in the form of excessive taxation...

First you must buy auto insurance....then health insurance....what's next?....carbon footprint insurance....?

And as for the "privilege" of driving....what a load....we the people OWN those roads...not the insurance companies...

Given the very high risk of costly damage to your vehicle when driving on public roads, I don't have a huge problem with requiring at least some liability insurance to protect the other guy. If you don't drive or don't use the public roads, then you don't have to have insurance. In that sense it is not much different than having to have a business or fishing license. I do have a HUGE problem with having to pay more for my insurance policy because others drive drunk or carelessly or just don't get around to getting insurance. Those people should be held accountable for extra expense, not me.

Health insurance should be entirely optional. If I don't want to utilize the healthcare system, I should not have to have insurance. Even if I do want to utilize it and pay out of pocket, that should be my choice. And I should not be able to have others pay for my healthcare if I do not provide it for myself, even if it takes me the rest of my life to pay off a hospital bill. You should not be responsible for my healthcare.

We could cut healthcare costs in half though by utilizing it as we do our automobiles. When you need new tires or new windshield wipers or spark plugs or an engine rebuild you pay for it out of pocket. You don't have insurance that covers that. You also pay for routine maintenance, oil changes, car washes, etc. out of pocket. Your insurance is reserved for big major losses that you can't easily afford out of pocket.

What if we went back to doing healthcare that way? It was that way in the 1950's and 60's. If you needed a flu shot, you paid for it. If the kids had a sore throat, you paid for the doctor's visit to get it checked out and for the penicillin shot and prescription. You go to the emergency room? You get a bill. You expected to pay the first couple of hundred to the first couple of thousand of a hospital bill out of pocket. Our annual check up was on us.

If we would go back to that system, everybody would see their health insurance premiums go down many hundreds of dollars per month.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But I still get treatment, and a bill, whether I can pay it or not.

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

Yeah, but does anyone REALLY think the government is going to force those people to foot the entire bill for their own health insurance? If they were going to do that, they'd stop subsidizing their ER visits and make them pay the bills themselves. But they don't do that, do they? You mandate that people have health insurance whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, and what's going to happen is that a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is going to have to be established. So eureka! I'm still paying for it.

Yes....same goes for auto insurance....typically the jerk that hits you has no insurance.....so YOU wind up paying for it....with your deductible and overall increased insurance costs.... (why can't we just force them to pay at least something by impounding their car and making them sell it if they can't/won't cough up the money?)

If jail is the answer.....shouldn't people who don't buy auto insurance go to jail too.....?

Then we can put them away into jail along with those who don't buy health insurance....

Then we will have to really beef up our jailhouses bigtime....

.....that's even MORE money out of our pockets.....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

No, because mandating that people have health insurance isn't comparable to mandating liability car insurance. The first is to protect the insured, and the second is to protect others FROM the insured. It would be more correctly comparable to mandating that people buy comprehensive insurance, to cover THEIR OWN damages, which I don't consider any more the government's business than I do their health care decisions.

Again, it's not about them. It's about the people who have to pay for their decision.


That is the entire premise behind mandatory insurance.

Mandated liability insurance is so someone else doesn't get stuck paying to fix their car because you're an idiot. Mandated medical insurance is so they don't have to pay because you waited forever and went to the ER because you have no insurance.

The bottom line is the same: Making you buy insurance so others don't pay for your decisions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

That's not what financial responsibility laws regarding auto insurance are meant to address.

Auto liability insurance is not for your vehicle, it's for the property you damage while using it, or the people you injure.

And mandated health insurance isn't about your body. It's about the taxdollars you cost when you show up in the ER because you didn't get regular healthcare because you had no insurance. Both are about the way your actions/choices effect other people.

So explain to me how you're going to protect me from those people. Whether I'm paying because my tax dollars fund the ER or I'm paying because my tax dollars are giving them comprehensive health coverage, I'M still paying. You haven't protected ME in the slightest. You've just made it easier for THEM to take my money.

Thanks for nothing.

In neither car or health insurance is the mandate in any way designed to protect you from yourself.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

But I still get treatment, and a bill, whether I can pay it or not.

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

Yeah, but does anyone REALLY think the government is going to force those people to foot the entire bill for their own health insurance? If they were going to do that, they'd stop subsidizing their ER visits and make them pay the bills themselves. But they don't do that, do they? You mandate that people have health insurance whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, and what's going to happen is that a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is going to have to be established. So eureka! I'm still paying for it.

The mandate and the public option are two different subjects.

 

[slackjawed]

Exactly. The People end up footing the bill- your decisions harm others.

That's the very argument forwarded for mandated insurance in both cases.

Yeah, but does anyone REALLY think the government is going to force those people to foot the entire bill for their own health insurance? If they were going to do that, they'd stop subsidizing their ER visits and make them pay the bills themselves. But they don't do that, do they? You mandate that people have health insurance whether they want it or not, whether they can afford it or not, and what's going to happen is that a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance is going to have to be established. So eureka! I'm still paying for it.

The mandate and the public option are two different subjects.

If they pass a law mandating you must buy health insurance, the public option will be required. That has been the plan all along.........

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If I don't want to utilize the healthcare system, I should not have to have insurance.

So those who opt out get a tattoo saying 'do not provide me with emergency medical care'?

If you needed a flu shot, you paid for it.

So you oppose mass-immunization?

If the kids had a sore throat, you paid for the doctor's visit to get it checked out and for the penicillin shot and prescription.

People don't do that. They don't have insurance, so they wait 'til it gets really bad and they show up at the ER. That's a huge part of the problem we're dealing with now.

 

[Foxfyre]

If I don't want to utilize the healthcare system, I should not have to have insurance.

So those who opt out get a tattoo saying 'do not provide me with emergency medical care'?.

I doubt the system will collapse if the few people brought in comatose receive emergency medical care. In fact before the government got involved in healthcare, emergency rooms were providing emergency medical care to folks, no questions asked. The patient and/or responsible family members were presented with a bill and arrangements were made to help them pay it off. If it was more than the family could handle, friends, neighbors, local charities often pitched in.

The point was, the community took care of stuff. The Federal government was in no way involved. And that is the way it should be.

If you needed a flu shot, you paid for it.

So you oppose mass-immunization?

Nope we had it for everything from tetanus to pertussis to smallpox to polio. Kids who didn't get their shots could not attend public school. Sometimes communities would set up reduced cost clinics to help kids get the shots if their families couldn't easily afford them, and often off duty doctors and nurses volunteered their time for those, but everybody paid what they could. We worked it out.

If the kids had a sore throat, you paid for the doctor's visit to get it checked out and for the penicillin shot and prescription.

People don't do that. They don't have insurance, so they wait 'til it gets really bad and they show up at the ER. That's a huge part of the problem we're dealing with now

Well we were taken to the doctor when we were sick and we took our kids to the doctor when they were sick. But then in those days parents felt personal responsibility for their kids and expected to be held accountable for their welfare. They didn't expect you to pay the government to raise them.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Those who oppose the personal mandate, do you also oppose the mandate requiring people to buy car insurance?

Is not the reasoning behind the two (making people buy insurance so others don't have to cover their costs when they get in an accident or go to the ER) the same?

No, because mandating that people have health insurance isn't comparable to mandating liability car insurance. The first is to protect the insured, and the second is to protect others FROM the insured. It would be more correctly comparable to mandating that people buy comprehensive insurance, to cover THEIR OWN damages, which I don't consider any more the government's business than I do their health care decisions.

Again, it's not about them. It's about the people who have to pay for their decision.


That is the entire premise behind mandatory insurance.

Mandated liability insurance is so someone else doesn't get stuck paying to fix their car because you're an idiot. Mandated medical insurance is so they don't have to pay because you waited forever and went to the ER because you have no insurance.

The bottom line is the same: Making you buy insurance so others don't pay for your decisions.

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it....either way the good guys get to pay.....the ones who never paid will still never pay....you're still going to be stuck for paying....

So....in typical lib fashion....we forfeit our freedoms because libs scream about a few bad apples....

Say.....whatever happened to that old lib belief in CHOICE.....?

....Or is the choice now going to be PAY or GO TO JAIL....?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

 

[slackjawed]

No, because mandating that people have health insurance isn't comparable to mandating liability car insurance. The first is to protect the insured, and the second is to protect others FROM the insured. It would be more correctly comparable to mandating that people buy comprehensive insurance, to cover THEIR OWN damages, which I don't consider any more the government's business than I do their health care decisions.

Again, it's not about them. It's about the people who have to pay for their decision.


That is the entire premise behind mandatory insurance.

Mandated liability insurance is so someone else doesn't get stuck paying to fix their car because you're an idiot. Mandated medical insurance is so they don't have to pay because you waited forever and went to the ER because you have no insurance.

The bottom line is the same: Making you buy insurance so others don't pay for your decisions.

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it....either way the good guys get to pay.....the ones who never paid will still never pay....you're still going to be stuck for paying....

So....in typical lib fashion....we forfeit our freedoms because libs scream about a few bad apples....

Say.....whatever happened to that old lib belief in CHOICE.....?

That, and a lot of people will fall below the income limit, and the taxpayers will pay for them anyway........

 

[slackjawed]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

In Arizona, my state, the state says that about 30% don't have insurance.
If they can't enforce existing laws, why should we let them pass more laws?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

Right along with mandated helmets and seat belts....

 

[LuckyDan]

The problem with mandatory insurance is that only the good guys will buy it...

They can track everything else you do. You can buy a car from a chopshop. It's hard to buy another you and not pay.

So... you oppose mandated car insurance, yes?

You should consider the difference between direct cost and indirect cost.

If I blow a stop sign and you hit me in your 6 year old car, and you do not carry collision coverage while I am uninsured, I've just cost you a decent used car. You can sue me and win a judgement, but good luck collecting.

If I get sick and go to the ER with no insurance, I've cost you almost nothing and you'll never even know about it.

This financial responsibility analogy is not apt.