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

[emilynghiem]

Seriously C_Clayton_Jones
I would REALLY like to understand your mindset, and starting assumptions, that could explain why you don't feel anything is forced on anyone with these ACA mandates.

My guess is that you believe the costs are out there anyway, so "forcing people to buy insurance" is a given, they would pay those costs anyway so this isn't "adding" anything they aren't already paying for.

is that close?

So if that is what you are thinking, that is like telling someone
well, God made all the world and all the knowledge and science and everything in it.
You don't really have free will, you just think you do.

So it doesn't matter what you do, you have to follow God anyway, because God is in charge of all things, and even created you, and knows all your life in advance.

So you might as well be forced to follow God, and pay into Christian programs, because that's who has to do all the work anyway.

Christians are healing the sick and addicted in prisons, and paying for all the extra health care, homeless, hungry and orphaned.

Since there isn't enough money to cover the need,
you are going to be required to pay into a fund to cover more of these programs
SINCE THESE COSTS ARE INCURRED ANYWAY.

Before, you had a choice whether to pay into charity or not.
But after this bill, now you are REQUIRED to pay into a charity fund,
or else we will deduct money from your account and pay into a fund ANYWAY.

This isn't perfectly the same, C_Clayton_Jones

But if the shoe was on the other foot, and you were now REQUIRED to pay into prolife Christian health programs, instead of having the FREE CHOICE to pay or not,
OR ELSE YOU WOULD GET FINED BY GOVT
wouldn't you say you were being FORCED to do something you
weren't FORCED to do before?

Does this example (although imperfect) help demonstrate what it feels like
if you didn't agree with the choices that were now required to avoid a fine?

 

[emilynghiem]

C_Clayton_Jones
You also remind me of my prolife friends who think banning abortion is "NOT taking away any choices or rights", because abortion as an act of murder is not a choice to begin with.

Honestly CCJones is this what you mean by not forcing anyone:
because we are paying for health care costs anyway,
you are saying it doesn't really make a difference if the cost is taken up front.
We would have had to pay anyway.
It's just making sure it's paid in the form of insurance up front, which you are saying
costs less than waiting until afterwards to pay the full bill?

Is this what you mean?

(And if so, do you still recognize that preempts citizens' LIBERTY to CHOOSE to pay for insurance up front, by requiring it by federal regulations in order to avoid a tax penalty.

As for the tax penalty, I understand you see this as an "added tax on everyone so nobody is penalized" but if people buy insurance they are EXEMPTED from this tax on everyone.

But again, given how the process was BEFORE the tax, people USED to have free choice whether or not to buy insurance; and now there is a tax penalty required.

If we explained it this way, that EVERYONE is being forced to do something we didn't have to do before, we ALL have to pay UP FRONT instead of waiting until AFTER health care costs are incurred to start paying.

So if it's worded that way, is that a better description that the law requires
EVERYONE to pay up front when, previously, we HAD the freedom to wait until later?

is that more clear? Thanks! Still trying to figure it out how you envision this on your side.

 

[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.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Guilty until proven innocent is not good government. If someone behaves irresponsibly, if they don't pay their bills, then we can curtail their rights and force them to buy insurance. But not before.

Would you apply this same logic to other areas of the law? It's already being considered for gun owners in California. Does it seem like a good idea to outsource our rights to private corporations?

 

[danielpalos]

An alternative could be to solve simple poverty and not let simply being poor on an at-will basis to be any form of excuse for being a bad capitalist.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Well Flopper that's where I'd say mandating insurance through the FEDERAL level is NOT the only way to regulate if someone counts as responsible to get an exemption.

It's actually discriminating against people who exercise their responsibility in other ways; it's the federal govt "regulating on the basis of RELIGION" by regulating WHICH religious groups count or don't count as exemptions or as "responsible."

This is all FAITH based, remember, nobody has proven WHICH of these methods is "BEST" which will never be proven because people's values and beliefs are different.

By your arguments Flopper what's to stop prolife people from passing mandates banning abortion as "the only way to guarantee responsibility"
or mandating Spiritual Healing as the "only way to guarantee" that taxpayers aren't forced to carry the costs of drug addicts and sex abusers who would be screened out and cured (if spiritual healing were mandated as a way to "cut costs and ensure responsibility for health costs".)

Isn't it arbitrary what are the CONDITIONS by which some taxpayers are getting exempted and some are getting PENALIZED? What is so magical about insurance, when it doesn't even cover all the costs or all the population? What about all the other measures and provisions needed to cover the rest of those costs and population -- why don't investments in THOSE venues count as responsibility and exemptions?

And now that it has come out that people have conflicting political BELIEFS, where some believe RELIGIOUSLY in govt health care as a right while others BELIEVE in free market as their philosophy and way of life, isn't it "discriminating by creed" for govt to EXEMPT people for complying with beliefs in govt health care, and to PENALIZE people who believe in free market and that govt does not have authority to mandate insurance.

Those choices are even biased by CREED. The Congress members who voted for this were split along those very lines of BELIEF, where the ones who Support these beliefs passed this bill that exempts people who agree with those beliefs (and the ones who oppose these beliefs in health care are PENALIZED). Isn't that a sign of passing a law that favors and REWARDS followers of one belief while punishing opponents of other beliefs?

How obvious is THAT, that the govt is being abused to establish one set of beliefs over others,
when the vote was split by Party, based on the "BELIEF" that "health care is a right" proclaimed as A BELIEF in the Democrats' own party platform. Isn't that obviously a political religion then?

And what is even criminal about wanting free choice to pay for health care other ways?

Why should liberals seek to penalize that free choice, while fighting to defend the free choice of abortion, to take drugs, etc. Clearly there is a political bias going on, and in this case, the discrimination is mandated in the form of penalizing people of opposing political beliefs.

Are there any honest politicians on the left even willing to acknowledge this at all?

The primary provisions of the healthcare law are based on facts not beliefs.

Healthcare providers have had to write off and an estimated 100 billion dollars a year in bad debt, over 45 billion from our largest hospitals. Almost all of that amount was due to uninsured or under insured patients. Those amounts were of course passed on in the form of higher medical costs and insurance premiums. Some people chose to act irresponsibility by not providing insurance for themselves and their family. Others could not because of preexisting conditions or the cost of insurance. In either case, the healthcare law addressed the problem by mandating that everyone carry insurance and provide financial assistance for those who could not afford it.

It's not just a belief that universal health insurance coverage will lead to a healthier nation but a fact. There have been a number of studies linking better health with health insurance coverage. A Harvard Medical School Study shows uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Guilty until proven innocent is not good government. If someone behaves irresponsibly, if they don't pay their bills, then we can curtail their rights and force them to buy insurance. But not before.

Would you apply this same logic to other areas of the law? It's already being considered for gun owners in California. Does it seem like a good idea to outsource our rights to private corporations?

Most of the medical debt came from families with serious illnesses. They would not have qualified for health insurance because of preexisting conditions and if did they would not have been able to pay the premiums. The ACA is making this a mute point because of the increase in healthcare coverage. Hospitals are already reducing allowances for bad debt.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Well Flopper that's where I'd say mandating insurance through the FEDERAL level is NOT the only way to regulate if someone counts as responsible to get an exemption.

It's actually discriminating against people who exercise their responsibility in other ways; it's the federal govt "regulating on the basis of RELIGION" by regulating WHICH religious groups count or don't count as exemptions or as "responsible."

This is all FAITH based, remember, nobody has proven WHICH of these methods is "BEST" which will never be proven because people's values and beliefs are different.

By your arguments Flopper what's to stop prolife people from passing mandates banning abortion as "the only way to guarantee responsibility"
or mandating Spiritual Healing as the "only way to guarantee" that taxpayers aren't forced to carry the costs of drug addicts and sex abusers who would be screened out and cured (if spiritual healing were mandated as a way to "cut costs and ensure responsibility for health costs".)

Isn't it arbitrary what are the CONDITIONS by which some taxpayers are getting exempted and some are getting PENALIZED? What is so magical about insurance, when it doesn't even cover all the costs or all the population? What about all the other measures and provisions needed to cover the rest of those costs and population -- why don't investments in THOSE venues count as responsibility and exemptions?

And now that it has come out that people have conflicting political BELIEFS, where some believe RELIGIOUSLY in govt health care as a right while others BELIEVE in free market as their philosophy and way of life, isn't it "discriminating by creed" for govt to EXEMPT people for complying with beliefs in govt health care, and to PENALIZE people who believe in free market and that govt does not have authority to mandate insurance.

Those choices are even biased by CREED. The Congress members who voted for this were split along those very lines of BELIEF, where the ones who Support these beliefs passed this bill that exempts people who agree with those beliefs (and the ones who oppose these beliefs in health care are PENALIZED). Isn't that a sign of passing a law that favors and REWARDS followers of one belief while punishing opponents of other beliefs?

How obvious is THAT, that the govt is being abused to establish one set of beliefs over others,
when the vote was split by Party, based on the "BELIEF" that "health care is a right" proclaimed as A BELIEF in the Democrats' own party platform. Isn't that obviously a political religion then?

And what is even criminal about wanting free choice to pay for health care other ways?

Why should liberals seek to penalize that free choice, while fighting to defend the free choice of abortion, to take drugs, etc. Clearly there is a political bias going on, and in this case, the discrimination is mandated in the form of penalizing people of opposing political beliefs.

Are there any honest politicians on the left even willing to acknowledge this at all?

The primary provisions of the healthcare law are based on facts not beliefs.

Healthcare providers have had to write off and an estimated 100 billion dollars a year in bad debt, over 45 billion from our largest hospitals. Almost all of that amount was due to uninsured or under insured patients. Those amounts were of course passed on in the form of higher medical costs and insurance premiums. Some people chose to act irresponsibility by not providing insurance for themselves and their family. Others could not because of preexisting conditions or the cost of insurance. In either case, the healthcare law addressed the problem by mandating that everyone carry insurance and provide financial assistance for those who could not afford it.

It's not just a belief that universal health insurance coverage will lead to a healthier nation but a fact. There have been a number of studies linking better health with health insurance coverage. A Harvard Medical School Study shows uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts.

Hi Flopper RE: facts not beliefs?

I disagree on several levels

A. The BELIEF that health care is a right through govt IN ITSELF is a BELIEF.

Can you deny that this is a BELIEF? <-- regardless of any other facts or information,
can we at least AGREE that the whole premise of govt health care is based on a BELIEF?
And the problem at the VERY ROOT is that people do not SHARE this belief but it is being forced on them through govt, which is in violation of religious freedom and equal protection of the law from discrimination by CREED.

Proof that this is a BELIEF:
A1. People prove this EVERY DAY by openly STATING they BELIEVE in "health care as a right" while
half the nation has been screaming about their BELIEFS in free market health care.
There are also BELIEFS in spiritual healing, or Christian Science and those ways of providing health care,
so in addition to the BELIEF in "govt right to health care" as many others will openly admit and state
they DON'T BELIEVE that. So these are ALL BELIEFS.

Do we agree we are dealing with BELIEFS about health care and who has responsibility for their health
-- the people by free choice or free market, or the govt by regulating health care choices for people.

Do you understand a political belief or not?

A2. The Texas Democratic Platform in writing states
we/Texas Democrats "BELIEVE" that health care is a right not a privilege
A3. Other sources have brought up this issue that the
BELIEF that "health care is a right" is a belief (similar to the current
issue over who does or does not BELIEVE that marriage is a fundamental right that belongs with govt)

B. the CONTENT of the regulations and mandates being required by federal govt for citizens
to pay for and participate in, directly or indirectly, WITHOUT the freedom to opt in or opt out.

You can see from the arguments back and forth, that people DON'T agree what has or has not been proven.
Flopper, as dblack pointed out,
can you PROVE that just because someone didn't buy insurance, they weren't going to pay for their health care?
This has NOT been proven. Citizens were deprived of free choice whether or not to buy insurance,
WITHOUT ANY PROOF or due process to establish they committed a crime, abuse or incurred costs they didn't pay for yet!

You can cite what you want,
but if people DON'T BELIEVE that justifies taking away liberty,
that doesn't PROVE to them it was necessary to mandate those programs at the cost of individual freedom.

C. In general, what you cannot prove.
C1. You cannot prove that the federal mandates on insurance are the only way to pay for health care.
In fact, it is KNOWN that this does NOT cover all costs or all people.

So it is OBVIOUS that OTHER MEANS are STILL needed to cover universal care for the greater population.
So WHY are those other means and options being PENALIZED?
If they are needed anyway?

C2. You cannot prove that ALL the people losing liberty and being forced to buy insurance to avoid penalties
weren't going to pay for health care other ways, and cannot prove the insurance mandates are the only solution.

C3. You cannot prove that mandating insurance is better than other choices such as
a. reforming prisons and mental health systems to redirect those resources toward preventative health
b. investing in teaching hospitals and medical education internships to train service providers who earn credits
by serving in public health

Flopper we haven't begun to address the medical resources, facilities, programs and education and service outreach
needed to cover the population and demand.

How can you possibly say anything is proven when none of these other solutions
have even been IMPLEMENTED much less tested out and studied for cost effectiveness?

Dear Flopper I am guessing all the "facts" you are talking about
only back up one side or the other.

So that is NOT justification for putting one belief over another.

That is only explaining the rationale behind someone's BELIEFS in one or the other.

WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH BELIEFS ABOUT HEALTH CARE
which don't agree, because the people who believe that health care is a right through govt
should not be forced to change their BELIEFS to free market, and people who believe in
free market and individual responsibility for health care should not be forced to change their BELIEFS to govt health care.

BOTH SIDES HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR BELIEFS EQUALLY.

Do we agree on that? Or do you believe the govt has the right to impose
one set of beliefs on citizens of other beliefs?

Do you believe in religious freedom and "separation of church and state" or not?
Do you believe govt has authority to dictate issues of beliefs for its citizens, and even force them to pay fines into such
a system they have VOCALLY expressed they Don't Believe in.

What proof do you need that they don't believe in govt health care?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Guilty until proven innocent is not good government. If someone behaves irresponsibly, if they don't pay their bills, then we can curtail their rights and force them to buy insurance. But not before.

Would you apply this same logic to other areas of the law? It's already being considered for gun owners in California. Does it seem like a good idea to outsource our rights to private corporations?

Most of the medical debt came from families with serious illnesses. They would not have qualified for health insurance because of preexisting conditions and if did they would not have been able to pay the premiums. The ACA is making this a mute point because of the increase in healthcare coverage. Hospitals are already reducing allowances for bad debt.

Flopper

1. you haven't proven that the medical debt could be resolved another way, without robbing lawabiding citizens of liberty.
Such as by requiring convicted inmates who have incurred costs to pay those back to the public,
and use that money instead to pay for health care.

You haven't shown any justification for why go after law abiding citizens not shown to have incurred any costs yet,
and SKIP going after convicted inmates who can be shown to have cost taxpayers up to 50K a year for costs
plus the costs of any crimes, property damage, hospitalization medical legal or administrative expenses.

2. I would compare you to prolife arguments that banning abortion is the only way to stop it.
You can cite all you want to, how much getting rid of any abortion practice in America would indeed reduce abortion.

But you HAVEN'T proven that abortion couldn't be stopped, reduced and prevented OTHER WAYS
besides restricting the choice of abortion.

What about PREVENTION?

If we prevent crime, we also save resources that pay for health care.

So here's another option instead of mandating insurance

3. if Spiritual healing is researched and developed to provide free cure for
cancer, addiction, abuse, criminal and mental illness, etc.
how about using THAT to reduce costs of health care in order to cover more people?

To turn prisons and mental health wards into cost effective preventative treatment centers
usign these FREE and NATURAL methods.

And the best part, is that spiritual healing remains VOLUNTARY
so nobody loses their freedom.

What if we use that option, where nobody's liberties are lost but many more lives, minds and resources are saved.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Yes, individual rights are a major issue when discussing the mandate. However, I think you will agree that with rights comes responsibilities. In this case it's the individual's responsibility to see that their healthcare providers gets paid for their services. Without insurance that's impossible for most families. Before healthcare reform 50 million people didn't carry health insurance and most of them had no way to pay for treatments of serious healthcare problems. Many of those that carried insurance, had insufficient coverage to pay for major healthcare expenses.

Well Flopper that's where I'd say mandating insurance through the FEDERAL level is NOT the only way to regulate if someone counts as responsible to get an exemption.

It's actually discriminating against people who exercise their responsibility in other ways; it's the federal govt "regulating on the basis of RELIGION" by regulating WHICH religious groups count or don't count as exemptions or as "responsible."

This is all FAITH based, remember, nobody has proven WHICH of these methods is "BEST" which will never be proven because people's values and beliefs are different.

By your arguments Flopper what's to stop prolife people from passing mandates banning abortion as "the only way to guarantee responsibility"
or mandating Spiritual Healing as the "only way to guarantee" that taxpayers aren't forced to carry the costs of drug addicts and sex abusers who would be screened out and cured (if spiritual healing were mandated as a way to "cut costs and ensure responsibility for health costs".)

Isn't it arbitrary what are the CONDITIONS by which some taxpayers are getting exempted and some are getting PENALIZED? What is so magical about insurance, when it doesn't even cover all the costs or all the population? What about all the other measures and provisions needed to cover the rest of those costs and population -- why don't investments in THOSE venues count as responsibility and exemptions?

And now that it has come out that people have conflicting political BELIEFS, where some believe RELIGIOUSLY in govt health care as a right while others BELIEVE in free market as their philosophy and way of life, isn't it "discriminating by creed" for govt to EXEMPT people for complying with beliefs in govt health care, and to PENALIZE people who believe in free market and that govt does not have authority to mandate insurance.

Those choices are even biased by CREED. The Congress members who voted for this were split along those very lines of BELIEF, where the ones who Support these beliefs passed this bill that exempts people who agree with those beliefs (and the ones who oppose these beliefs in health care are PENALIZED). Isn't that a sign of passing a law that favors and REWARDS followers of one belief while punishing opponents of other beliefs?

How obvious is THAT, that the govt is being abused to establish one set of beliefs over others,
when the vote was split by Party, based on the "BELIEF" that "health care is a right" proclaimed as A BELIEF in the Democrats' own party platform. Isn't that obviously a political religion then?

And what is even criminal about wanting free choice to pay for health care other ways?

Why should liberals seek to penalize that free choice, while fighting to defend the free choice of abortion, to take drugs, etc. Clearly there is a political bias going on, and in this case, the discrimination is mandated in the form of penalizing people of opposing political beliefs.

Are there any honest politicians on the left even willing to acknowledge this at all?

The primary provisions of the healthcare law are based on facts not beliefs.

Healthcare providers have had to write off and an estimated 100 billion dollars a year in bad debt, over 45 billion from our largest hospitals. Almost all of that amount was due to uninsured or under insured patients. Those amounts were of course passed on in the form of higher medical costs and insurance premiums. Some people chose to act irresponsibility by not providing insurance for themselves and their family. Others could not because of preexisting conditions or the cost of insurance. In either case, the healthcare law addressed the problem by mandating that everyone carry insurance and provide financial assistance for those who could not afford it.

It's not just a belief that universal health insurance coverage will lead to a healthier nation but a fact. There have been a number of studies linking better health with health insurance coverage. A Harvard Medical School Study shows uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts.

Hi Flopper RE: facts not beliefs?

I disagree on several levels

A. The BELIEF that health care is a right through govt IN ITSELF is a BELIEF.

Can you deny that this is a BELIEF? <-- regardless of any other facts or information,
can we at least AGREE that the whole premise of govt health care is based on a BELIEF?
And the problem at the VERY ROOT is that people do not SHARE this belief but it is being forced on them through govt, which is in violation of religious freedom and equal protection of the law from discrimination by CREED.

Proof that this is a BELIEF:
A1. People prove this EVERY DAY by openly STATING they BELIEVE in "health care as a right" while
half the nation has been screaming about their BELIEFS in free market health care.
There are also BELIEFS in spiritual healing, or Christian Science and those ways of providing health care,
so in addition to the BELIEF in "govt right to health care" as many others will openly admit and state
they DON'T BELIEVE that. So these are ALL BELIEFS.

Do we agree we are dealing with BELIEFS about health care and who has responsibility for their health
-- the people by free choice or free market, or the govt by regulating health care choices for people.

Do you understand a political belief or not?

A2. The Texas Democratic Platform in writing states
we/Texas Democrats "BELIEVE" that health care is a right not a privilege
A3. Other sources have brought up this issue that the
BELIEF that "health care is a right" is a belief (similar to the current
issue over who does or does not BELIEVE that marriage is a fundamental right that belongs with govt)

B. the CONTENT of the regulations and mandates being required by federal govt for citizens
to pay for and participate in, directly or indirectly, WITHOUT the freedom to opt in or opt out.

You can see from the arguments back and forth, that people DON'T agree what has or has not been proven.
Flopper, as dblack pointed out,
can you PROVE that just because someone didn't buy insurance, they weren't going to pay for their health care?
This has NOT been proven. Citizens were deprived of free choice whether or not to buy insurance,
WITHOUT ANY PROOF or due process to establish they committed a crime, abuse or incurred costs they didn't pay for yet!

You can cite what you want,
but if people DON'T BELIEVE that justifies taking away liberty,
that doesn't PROVE to them it was necessary to mandate those programs at the cost of individual freedom.

C. In general, what you cannot prove.
C1. You cannot prove that the federal mandates on insurance are the only way to pay for health care.
In fact, it is KNOWN that this does NOT cover all costs or all people.

So it is OBVIOUS that OTHER MEANS are STILL needed to cover universal care for the greater population.
So WHY are those other means and options being PENALIZED?
If they are needed anyway?

C2. You cannot prove that ALL the people losing liberty and being forced to buy insurance to avoid penalties
weren't going to pay for health care other ways, and cannot prove the insurance mandates are the only solution.

C3. You cannot prove that mandating insurance is better than other choices such as
a. reforming prisons and mental health systems to redirect those resources toward preventative health
b. investing in teaching hospitals and medical education internships to train service providers who earn credits
by serving in public health

Flopper we haven't begun to address the medical resources, facilities, programs and education and service outreach
needed to cover the population and demand.

How can you possibly say anything is proven when none of these other solutions
have even been IMPLEMENTED much less tested out and studied for cost effectiveness?

Dear Flopper I am guessing all the "facts" you are talking about
only back up one side or the other.

So that is NOT justification for putting one belief over another.

That is only explaining the rationale behind someone's BELIEFS in one or the other.

WE ARE STILL LEFT WITH BELIEFS ABOUT HEALTH CARE
which don't agree, because the people who believe that health care is a right through govt
should not be forced to change their BELIEFS to free market, and people who believe in
free market and individual responsibility for health care should not be forced to change their BELIEFS to govt health care.

BOTH SIDES HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR BELIEFS EQUALLY.

Do we agree on that? Or do you believe the govt has the right to impose
one set of beliefs on citizens of other beliefs?

Do you believe in religious freedom and "separation of church and state" or not?
Do you believe govt has authority to dictate issues of beliefs for its citizens, and even force them to pay fines into such
a system they have VOCALLY expressed they Don't Believe in.

What proof do you need that they don't believe in govt health care?

The first I ever heard of healthcare being questioned as a right was raised by conservative writers. There is nothing in the ACA that claims healthcare is a right, certainly nothing in the constitution, and no court ruling to my knowledge refers to healthcare as being a right.

The common use of the phrase, the right to healthcare is usually used in the same vein as a child's right to a good education, an embryo's right to life, the right to safe food, the right to defend your property, the right to decent housing, and the right to die. These are not excited defined rights but rather interpreted from the constitution or other sources. Often the use of the phrase really means people should have the right to.....

Almost every bill that is passed by the House or Senate is based on the belief of congressmen that the legislation is in the best interest of the nation. It always about what people believe.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's abolish the Drug War to pay for healthcare.