in Florida, everyone who drives has to have car insurance, or you can get your license suspended.
If you are buying a home, the bank forces you to have Home owners Ins, or the bank insures your home and bills you.
Maybe we should make it so everyone has to buy health insurance, and if you don't you are billed for it by the State. If you don't pay it, the state can take it from your income tax, or put a lien on your property, or garnish your wages.
Maybe it would be cheaper then everyone having their hospital costs jacked up to pay for the people who have to resort to the emergency room for health care.
By the time they get to the Emergency Room, they are full blown AIDs instead of treatable HIV, or they have terminal cancer, instead of just needing surgery and chemo, or they are blind and need their legs amputated instead of just needing insulin. And the costs are more in the long run then if we treated people up front.
A single mother of three is working hard to provide for her family and cannot afford the health insurance. She suddenly comes down with a terrible disease that requires much care. Now, due to circumstances out of her control, she faces the government coming in and taking it from her income tax, putting a lien on her property, or garnishing her wages. I'm not sure if that's socially just. In a sense, that empowers government far more than a national health insurance program would.
The way I see it... in our current national situation the cost of the uninsured will almost always be passed on to those with insurance. When people can't pay the bill... the health care providers have to write it up as a loss and that is passed down to the consumer through higher health care costs. As health care costs rise, insurance premiums have to rise to meet the cost. As health insurance premiums rise... more people opt out of having health insurance. And the cycle repeats itself.
Using the logic you proposed, it would be much cleaner if the government formed a national health insurance program and required everyone to pay into it. This would also relieve businesses from the need to provide employees with health insurance. Business would be free to simply... do business.
But that would be very expensive. The government has to cut costs. I'd much rather see the government work on forming a national health insurance program than spending untold Trillions on foreign aid to foreign countries and unnecessary wars. We are not the world's police. If memory serves me correctly the United States and Canada both had legislation aimed at national health care systems... but WWI broke out and the American legislation was sidelined to fund the war... while Canada moved forward.
But then... that would be socialism. The problem is... this is 2011. The cost of the uninsured will ultimately be passed down to the insured. We need a way to insure that everyone pays into the system and the burden of the uninsured doesn't drive up our premiums until we too are found unable to pay for our health insurance. With my current understanding, this is the only way to do it without having to deny care or penalize those who are uninsured should they find themselves in need of care. It's a reality I DON'T like. But nonetheless, it's reality.
I'm trying to find the video on the net.
We'll see how it goes.
But, to move the conversation along, in the above situation is it moral to take someone else's money, in order to provide treatment?
If you deem that it is moral, than you are actually arguing that every individual is entitled to be provided with the very best medical care possible, without regard to expense.
Since we know that this is not possible, than you actually want to level the field and provide a lower standard of care for some and a higher standard of care for others.
So, we would wind up with a government commission determining what the level of care should be.
This is the agenda of those who prompted the question to be asked.
And this is why those who are against this agenda are not happy.
Sounds like there are about 3-4 people that say "yeah".
Amazing how you and others want to tar an entire movement with this.
It speaks volumes about your "Christianity".
And believe it or not, there are plenty of Tea Party members that are totally non-religious.
Desperation from the left.
Ridiculous.
The car insurance analogy is not applicable to healthcare.
Car insurance is required by the STATE government and is based on the fact that you can do harm to others or others property, due to driving a car.
On the other hand, I do believe that if a State Government required everyone to purchase health insurance than this would be constitutional.
But not the Federal Government.
The car insurance analogy is not applicable to healthcare.
Car insurance is required by the STATE government and is based on the fact that you can do harm to others or others property, due to driving a car.
On the other hand, I do believe that if a State Government required everyone to purchase health insurance than this would be constitutional.
But not the Federal Government.
Incorrect. It is unconstitutional for any government (city/county/state/federal) to require you to pay a fee to insure yourself. You only have to insure (or bond) yourself for damage done to others.
The government can not tax you for being a citizen. Essentially that is what a Force Nationalized Health Care (IE Hillary Care) would be. You can only be taxed on transactions ie transfer of money.
1) If you choose to not have the insurance to cover your stupid-ness, then do not REQUIRE me to pay for your bad decisions.
2) The bible teaches Charity out of the goodness. Liberals like to make OTHERS be charitable.
3) Would you choose to spend 1 million dollars to save the 1 idiot that chose not to have insurance, or spend that 1 million to vaccinate ever child in the state of South Dakota with the potential to save 200k children from death? Would you rather pay for the 1 idiot that chose not to get insurance, then reduce ever elderlies cost of medical and Elderly Care Home bill? That is the decision that needs to be made.
That is what it has come down to. You can not control the size of the pie, just the amount of the people eating it. I choose to let the 1 idiot die (or relay on charitable organizations) and cover those elderly and children.
As Sam Kinison said in Back to School, ".....good answer...."
Ferd, stay focused on the sad and scarey tea party folk that cheered to let a young man die who does not have health insurance. Stay forcused on your own soul to take up for their vileness. Yikes! These folk are not speaking for real christians.
Of what mindset are they?
I am taking up for no one. I am stating clearly and with great focus that this is a stupid question.
It is a political witch hunt and I am not biting.
The people who would go on this witch hunt have for a hero one who is actually worse!
On the one hand, you have with might be a few individuals that no one knows who have no real impact on policy making some noise.
on the other hand you have a PRESIDENT WHO TELLS PEOPLE THEIR ELDERLY LOVED ONES NEED TO JUST GO DIE.
and the group that might (might as we really dont know who these people are) include some number of noise makers are the ones vilified by you and others who suppor the wacked out president who wants old people to DIE.
My focus is clear and you arent going to Saul Alinsky conservatives on this forum without being called out.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I am taking up for no one. I am stating clearly and with great focus that this is a stupid question.
It is a political witch hunt and I am not biting.
The people who would go on this witch hunt have for a hero one who is actually worse!
On the one hand, you have with might be a few individuals that no one knows who have no real impact on policy making some noise.
on the other hand you have a PRESIDENT WHO TELLS PEOPLE THEIR ELDERLY LOVED ONES NEED TO JUST GO DIE.
and the group that might (might as we really dont know who these people are) include some number of noise makers are the ones vilified by you and others who suppor the wacked out president who wants old people to DIE.
My focus is clear and you arent going to Saul Alinsky conservatives on this forum without being called out.
Sounds like there are about 3-4 people that say "yeah".
Amazing how you and others want to tar an entire movement with this.
It speaks volumes about your "Christianity".
And believe it or not, there are plenty of Tea Party members that are totally non-religious.
Desperation from the left.
Ridiculous.
I don't think it's desperation from the left. I think it's seriously a concern. Why would ANYONE say "yeah"?
Also, the question wasn't truly answered. He tap danced around it.
Linear Mode
