peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
Just to clear up the first point, for the majority of people, going without a car isn't an option. I don't spend a good chunk of my income purchasing, insuring, operating, maintaining and repairing my car for the sheer luxury of it. It's a necessity for me, as it is for most of us. The fact that insurance is forced on us isn't the point. It's just plain necessary, and since there would invariably be some people who wouldn't get it if they had the choice, it has to be mandatory.
And since our health is consiberably more important than our transportation, why shouldn't that apply even more so to health insurance? Some people just aren't able to work at a well-paying job and afford decent health care at free market rates, not to mention legal fees when the insurance company stiffs them. All this lofty talk of ChoiceTM is meaningless to them. Under the current system, they have to go without health care; they have no choice.
I'm not American so I can't speak to the constitutional ramifications of the new bill (if it is unconstitutional, don't worry, you'll have your day in court). All I can say is that if the sanctity of state jurisdiction trumps the well-being of its people, it isn't worth it. If the states can't clean up their act, then all power to the feds.
Where I live, there was no need for intervention from the Canadian government. Saskatchewan cleaned up its own act after a long sorry history of insurance companies exploiting the low income and low education of the mostly farming population. The moment I was born, I automatically had full health insurance covered by the government (I've never paid a single premium, but I pay for it in taxes, which would be the equivalent of premiums). But that isn't socialism. Socialism is when the state owns my car, my house, my business and my doctor, and determines where I live and where to go--in other words, it owns my life. Here, the government not only lets me live my own life, but thinks highly enough of it to guarantee its health as much as medicine is able to. Your new health bill doesn't even come close to that; it's almost libertarian compared to our program. Sorry, but I have to laugh when I hear panicked cries of "Soshalizm" from you guys.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to take my fully government-insured self and drive my forcibly-insured car to that bastion of socialist oppression, the local Wal-Mart, to buy whatever I want at market-driven prices.
Oh, the socialism, it burns!
In an anecdotal way, things may be great for you, but that doesn't necessarily equate to how the US plans to implement this bill. To start with, the public option may be off the table by the end of the process*, so automatically being covered by a government plan may be a moot point. Public option is where the Dems want to go with it, but it is unknown at this point.
My comment was about Pres. Obama comparing this bill to required auto insurance. Your argument for that has nothing to do with the legal precedent set by that fact, but is rather an emotional plea to help those in need of health care. I think the Pres. is comparing apples and oranges. Consider that being forced to buy auto insurance may be unconstitutional and may be challenged as a result of this debate. I have my doubts that it is unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't set in stone and may be amended. The Clinton administration in 1994 concluded that a health insurance mandate would be "an unprecedented form of federal action."
We already have public health options for the poor and those systems are in financial trouble and reek of bureaucracy. I have trouble justifying creating a whole new system when we can't seem to manage the ones we have.
Any idea how much of your taxes goes to pay those premiums? Is it really a bargain or might you have gotten a better price and better care elsewhere in a free market?
Our health care system is not a free market, it is heavily regulated and that regulation is possibly one of the reasons our costs have skyrocketed. I'm not saying that health care needs no regulation, obviously it is an area where people need to be protected against substandard practice.
* It appears that States may be able to opt out of the Senate approved bill if there is a public option. The House and the Senate still have to work out the differences in both bills to come up with one final version.
Last edited:
Like I said before, I'm an outsider and can't comment on constitutional legality, but if it gets in the way of people's health, then maybe something's gotta change.
