Is health care a right?

[atlkvb]

Or a choice? Big debate now about replacing the ACA, but with what?

So philosophical question to the board, answer of which will determine how lawmakers treat whatever replacement law emerges.

Health care. Insurance, costs, access, treatment, services.

Right or choice?

Have at it.

I'm going to hold off weighing in so as not to stifle the debate, but I will eventually weigh in with my own opinions.

 

[bornaneer]

Lets admit it...... the ACA is a joke. I believe national health care for everyone from womb to grave is the only answer.

 

[roadtrasheer]

It is not a right in my opinion, I think a lot of people spend to much money on wants & expects the government to provide needs ....

 

[WVPATX]

Or a choice? Big debate now about replacing the ACA, but with what?

So philosophical question to the board, answer of which will determine how lawmakers treat whatever replacement law emerges.

Health care. Insurance, costs, access, treatment, services.

Right or choice?

Have it.

I'm going to hold off weighing in so as not to stifle the debate, but I will eventually weigh in with my own opinions.

Good question ATL. IMO, health care is not a right. It is not enshrined in our Constitution. Of course we want to take care of the infirmed, handicapped, disabled (truly disabled as opposed to many of the frauds on this program already), the very poor, etc. However, for those abled bodied men and women, health care must be earned, imo.

JFK said at his inaugural something very powerful:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." We as citizens have obligations and one of them is to provide for ourselves and our families. In other words, work. Make a living. Provide food, clothing and yes, health care for your families. I don't know how we got away from JFK's message, but we have. So many people think they are ENTITLED to these benefits regardless of their situation.

This is why we are entering very dangerous territory as a country. We are simply running out of money.

 

[Airport]

Or a choice? Big debate now about replacing the ACA, but with what?

So philosophical question to the board, answer of which will determine how lawmakers treat whatever replacement law emerges.

Health care. Insurance, costs, access, treatment, services.

Right or choice?

Have it.

I'm going to hold off weighing in so as not to stifle the debate, but I will eventually weigh in with my own opinions.

No, it is not a right. Life, abortions foes be damned, liberty and pursuit of property, which was prohibited in England. Only nobility could own property back then.

 

[atlkvb]

I'll wait for a few more responses before weighing in fully here, but for starters I'll state as an opening proposition that the right to a happy, healthy Life can be argued to exist as a right or at least one of our 'inalienable' rights. Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness.

However as a general application, how we choose to keep ourselves healthy is not a "right". It is by definition our choice.

So does the Government then have an obligation to come in and provide health care in order for us to remain healthy? It is not forbidden, but in my opinion it cannot be 'forced' or 'compelled' to do so. You can choose NOT to purchase health care, or you can choose the level of care you desire.

Government has no role in that choice, either to compel you or fine you if you choose not to access health care services.

So what about auto insurance, or homeowner's insurance...does Government have a right to
force you to purchase either of those financial security instruments?

Not Constitutionally. As a matter of financial security to Home mortgage lenders or Auto Insurance companies, requirements can be allowed to protect their financial solvency or ability to service the general public or lien holders by requiring at least a minimum amount of coverage on the assets being insured.

But once again, if you choose to not own a home, or own an automobile, you cannot be forced to purchase Homeowner's Insurance or Automobile Insurance.

More later as this relates to health care.

You Leftist and Socialist types, feel free to weigh in on your philosophy which I suspect involves either requiring or insisting Government mandate everyone either have Health insurance provided or paid for.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Broad statement certainly open to interpretation. And Constitutional scholars have debated whether that applies to health care. Most seem to think No, it does not. Here's a couple of articles: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

http://freedomoutpost.com/does-the-...congress-to-force-us-to-buy-health-insurance/

As much as I personally am in favor of some kind of national health plan being available to all citizens, it is not a right in the sense of the Constitution.

 

[atlkvb]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Broad statement certainly open to interpretation. And Constitutional scholars have debated whether that applies to health care. Most seem to think No, it does not. Here's a couple of articles: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

http://freedomoutpost.com/does-the-...congress-to-force-us-to-buy-health-insurance/

As much as I personally am in favor of some kind of national health plan being available to all citizens, it is not a right in the sense of the Constitution.

I'd agree with this from the Constitutional analysis. So why is it that you think so many Americans believe it is a "right"? Where does that thought process come from?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I'd agree with this from the Constitutional analysis. So why is it that you think so many Americans believe it is a "right"? Where does that thought process come from?

Cause they are all evil leftists. We get it.

 

[atlkvb]

Cause they are all evil leftists. We get it.

Yeah, well that's the simple answer. I'm trying to understand why it's so dominant in most American's psyches? Why isn't food a "right"?

 

[op2]

I don't think health care is a right. I think in politics people use weasel words to try to advance their position and calling health care a "right" is an example of that since if it really is a right then you can't possibly deny that it should be provided by the government and the argument is over.

Abortion is the classic example of this because it has weasel words on both sides. Pro-choice and pro-life. Which means, whatever your position on abortion, you're either anti-choice or anti-life.

Are public schools a right? How about utilities? And roads? Etc. I would say these things and many others are not rights but then again they are things that we as a society have collectively decided we want to provide. So as I see it the question re. health care is how much do we want society to provide? If at some point we decide we want the government to provide heatlh care for all then that's what we decide but I still wouldn't call it a "right."

 

[Mntneer]

The exercise of a "Right" shouldn't require the labor of others.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I'd agree with this from the Constitutional analysis. So why is it that you think so many Americans believe it is a "right"? Where does that thought process come from?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Certainly life can be equated with health in some regard. Is it a right to have equal protection under the law? Of course it is, not different for you or me or anyone else.

When our government "mandates" that no healthcare facility can turn away anyone regardless of their ability to pay, it in effect mandates healthcare for all. However, it is not treated equally under the law so if you or I where to go to a hospital and not pay you can be sure the hospital would go after us in court for their protection under the law. But the working poor, unable to afford healthcare and because they have few assets, can skate. Certainly not equal.

Therefore, the government itself has created an inequality in how citizens are protected under the law with regards to healthcare. And the provider has little recourse in many cases as it is throwing resources down a rat hole to try to get restitution on indigent care. So we all pay more because the government has created an inequity.

The States battle with "disproportionate share" payments to hospitals annually; nobody feels that they get what is right, I've been in some of these State Association meetings and it is ugly. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financing-and-reimbursement/dsh/

So the best solution would be for healthcare to be treated as a right of all citizens, not just those with health insurance or those at the lower end who actually get covered by the rest of us. Create a system whereby anyone over a certain income level has access to some sponsored plan, maybe an RFP type situation where the private sector can bid on the business, and those below are covered by Medicaid like they are now.

Something like this is at least equal and removes some of the burden from the rest of us and from hospitals carrying the uninsured.

 

[mneilmont]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Certainly life can be equated with health in some regard. Is it a right to have equal protection under the law? Of course it is, not different for you or me or anyone else.

When our government "mandates" that no healthcare facility can turn away anyone regardless of their ability to pay, it in effect mandates healthcare for all. However, it is not treated equally under the law so if you or I where to go to a hospital and not pay you can be sure the hospital would go after us in court for their protection under the law. But the working poor, unable to afford healthcare and because they have few assets, can skate. Certainly not equal.

Therefore, the government itself has created an inequality in how citizens are protected under the law with regards to healthcare. And the provider has little recourse in many cases as it is throwing resources down a rat hole to try to get restitution on indigent care. So we all pay more because the government has created an inequity.

The States battle with "disproportionate share" payments to hospitals annually; nobody feels that they get what is right, I've been in some of these State Association meetings and it is ugly. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financing-and-reimbursement/dsh/

So the best solution would be for healthcare to be treated as a right of all citizens, not just those with health insurance or those at the lower end who actually get covered by the rest of us. Create a system whereby anyone over a certain income level has access to some sponsored plan, maybe an RFP type situation where the private sector can bid on the business, and those below are covered by Medicaid like they are now.

Something like this is at least equal and removes some of the burden from the rest of us and from hospitals carrying the uninsured.

There is a difference in PROMOTE and PROVIDE. Meanings of the words are not even similar.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

There is a difference in PROMOTE and PROVIDE. Meanings of the words are not even similar.

Neither word is in the post you referenced, so I'm not sure I follow you.

 

[atlkvb]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Certainly life can be equated with health in some regard. Is it a right to have equal protection under the law? Of course it is, not different for you or me or anyone else.

When our government "mandates" that no healthcare facility can turn away anyone regardless of their ability to pay, it in effect mandates healthcare for all. However, it is not treated equally under the law so if you or I where to go to a hospital and not pay you can be sure the hospital would go after us in court for their protection under the law. But the working poor, unable to afford healthcare and because they have few assets, can skate. Certainly not equal.

Therefore, the government itself has created an inequality in how citizens are protected under the law with regards to healthcare. And the provider has little recourse in many cases as it is throwing resources down a rat hole to try to get restitution on indigent care. So we all pay more because the government has created an inequity.

The States battle with "disproportionate share" payments to hospitals annually; nobody feels that they get what is right, I've been in some of these State Association meetings and it is ugly. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financing-and-reimbursement/dsh/

So the best solution would be for healthcare to be treated as a right of all citizens, not just those with health insurance or those at the lower end who actually get covered by the rest of us. Create a system whereby anyone over a certain income level has access to some sponsored plan, maybe an RFP type situation where the private sector can bid on the business, and those below are covered by Medicaid like they are now.

Something like this is at least equal and removes some of the burden from the rest of us and from hospitals carrying the uninsured.

I'm trying to understand what you've said here, which honestly is the reason we're having such confusion over this---and squaring that with other things that are just as important to our "happiness" yet we don't consider a "right".

A luxury automobile. Fine clothing. Hot chicks. Good food. Interesting entertainment. Fabulous vacations. Well paying jobs. Deluxe homes. A 70 inch Flat screen T-V. An iPad. I could go on but you get my point?

Why do we consider only "health care" a right, and all of those other things get a pass? My own opinion is we think without good health care we'll all die, but couldn't you make that same argument about shelter? or Food?

I'm still trying to understand why health care has become such a sacred 'right' at the expense of all of those other necessities of Life which we do NOT consider such?

 

[atlkvb]

I would say these things and many others are not rights but then again they are things that we as a society have collectively decided we want to provide. So as I see it the question re. health care is how much do we want society to provide

See this makes more sense to me rather than proclaiming it as a "right" like one of the inalienable rights we are born with.

I think to understand where we draw that line is to understand what value we place on health care (or access to it) as something we deem necessary to our level of "happiness". Who wants to be sick with no way to get well?

But to suggest that those who wish to pursue their health in alternative ways, without Government mandates are somehow "selfish" or in need of coercion from the Government to participate seems to me to suggest authority among Government legislators they do not have.

I would not limit this to health care either. I think almost all entitlements could be argued under the same scenario. It's a question of where we place our values, and who gets to decide?

 

[mneilmont]

Neither word is in the post you referenced, so I'm not sure I follow you.

I am not sure I can help you then. You attempted to extrapolate Life means health. Of course they are not the same. Then there is attempt to extrapolate from Constitution "PROMOTE general welfare" to mean the government is to Provide general welfare.

Quit attempting to act coy and admit the liberties you are attempting to take in usage of wording.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I'm trying to understand what you've said here, which honestly is the reason we're having such confusion over this---and squaring that with other things that are just as important to our "happiness" yet we don't consider a "right".

A luxury automobile. Fine clothing. Hot chicks. Good food. Interesting entertainment. Fabulous vacations. Well paying jobs. Deluxe homes. A 70 inch Flat screen T-V. An iPad. I could go on but you get my point?

Why do we consider only "health care" a right, and all of those other things get a pass? My own opinion is we think without good health care we'll all die, but couldn't you make that same argument about shelter? or Food?

I'm still trying to understand why health care has become such a sacred 'right' at the expense of all of those other necessities of Life which we do NOT consider such?

I referenced Life in my reply, you are referencing Happiness; two different things. The objects you listed would make someone happy and the Constitution (via the Declaration of Independence which is referenced, one had to follow the other) affords them the "right" to obtain them. Unlike the old USSR where only Party Leaders could get a car, for instance. We make no such designations under the Constitution. Your "right" to the pursuit of happiness whatever it may be as long as it does not violate the rights of others or is against an established law shall not be encumbered.

So let's examine "Life" again. The Declaration of Independence further states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Safety and Happiness, it took different forms 240 years ago, yet the health and welfare of the people and their "unalienable rights" were paramount in the minds of those men from those 13 states who signed their names for all to see, themselves risking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Fast forward 200 years later and that government has now created a platform to include healthcare as part of that guarantee of life/health, even in an unintended methodology by treating one population differently from another via a state-sponsored program(s) -- Medicare and Medicaid. The issue we have at hand is the GAP created between persons with personal health insurance and people aged 65 or greater or those below a certain income level. Those in the GAP have been denied an "unalienable right" that the government has afforded, perhaps inadvertently, to everyone else. How is this equal?

So my opinion is that the government has created the idea of healthcare as a right but treated the distribution unequally. The ACA is a bad solution, but it has helped to fill a GAP created by the government itself. To abolish it entirely without a replacement plan would be equally bad.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

See this makes more sense to me rather than proclaiming it as a "right" like one of the inalienable rights we are born with.

I think to understand where we draw that line is to understand what value we place on health care (or access to it) as something we deem necessary to our level of "happiness". Who wants to be sick with no way to get well?

But to suggest that those who wish to pursue their health in alternative ways, without Government mandates are somehow "selfish" or in need of coercion from the Government to participate seems to me to suggest authority among Government legislators they do not have.

I would not limit this to health care either. I think almost all entitlements could be argued under the same scenario. It's a question of where we place our values, and who gets to decide?

Then would you be in favor of eliminating Medicaid for the poor and removing the requirement that all hospitals must provide care regardless of the persons ability to pay?

 

[atlkvb]

I referenced Life in my reply, you are referencing Happiness; two different things. The objects you listed would make someone happy and the Constitution (via the Declaration of Independence which is referenced, one had to follow the other) affords them the "right" to obtain them. Unlike the old USSR where only Party Leaders could get a car, for instance. We make no such designations under the Constitution. Your "right" to the pursuit of happiness whatever it may be as long as it does not violate the rights of others or is against an established law shall not be encumbered.

So let's examine "Life" again. The Declaration of Independence further states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Safety and Happiness, it took different forms 240 years ago, yet the health and welfare of the people and their "unalienable rights" were paramount in the minds of those men from those 13 states who signed their names for all to see, themselves risking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Fast forward 200 years later and that government has now created a platform to include healthcare as part of that guarantee of life/health, even in an unintended methodology by treating one population differently from another via a state-sponsored program(s) -- Medicare and Medicaid. The issue we have at hand is the GAP created between persons with personal health insurance and people aged 65 or greater or those below a certain income level. Those in the GAP have been denied an "unalienable right" that the government has afforded, perhaps inadvertently, to everyone else. How is this equal?

So my opinion is that the government has created the idea of healthcare as a right but treated the distribution unequally. The ACA is a bad solution, but it has helped to fill a GAP created by the government itself. To abolish it entirely without a replacement plan would be equally bad.

So then, to follow your logic, no one has a "right" NOT to participate in health care? If you're being consistent, you'd have to argue just as much for someone who chooses not to participate (by not purchasing health insurance) as someone who desires the Government to provide it?

But the person who chooses not to participate can't make that choice?

Again, who gets to decide that? What makes it a 'right' the Government can dictate or control personal access to?

 

[atlkvb]

Then would you be in favor of eliminating Medicaid for the poor and removing the requirement that all hospitals must provide care regardless of the persons ability to pay?

I'm not in favor of it's existence. Not as an entitlement others are forced to participate in. As a privately funded and purchased insurance instrument...sure. But of individual volition, not commission by the heavy hand of big Government.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I am not sure I can help you then. You attempted to extrapolate Life means health. Of course they are not the same. Then there is attempt to extrapolate from Constitution "PROMOTE general welfare" to mean the government is to Provide general welfare.

Quit attempting to act coy and admit the liberties you are attempting to take in usage of wording.

The original question was -- "So why is it that you think so many Americans believe it is a "right"? Where does that thought process come from?" My reply was an attempt to give the original question a framework as it regards to why many Americans believe healthcare is a right. I think you may have misinterpreted the answers or didn't read the entire response. Sorry for your confusion.

 

[atlkvb]

Then would you be in favor of eliminating Medicaid for the poor and removing the requirement that all hospitals must provide care regardless of the persons ability to pay?

I'm in favor of philanthropy, charity, pro bono work(Doctors without borders), and even private relief agencies (Salvation Army, Red Cross) operating as non profits to serve the needs of the medically indigent. Look at the work St. Jude's hospital or the Shriners do?

Why can't that be the expanded model instead a large bureaucratic wrecking ball that leaves everyone poor, most people uninsured, and care substandard...like the VA?

 

[atlkvb]

The original question was -- "So why is it that you think so many Americans believe it is a "right"? Where does that thought process come from?" My reply was an attempt to give the original question a framework as it regards to why many Americans believe healthcare is a right. I think you may have misinterpreted the answers or didn't read the entire response. Sorry for your confusion.

OK, I see. Re-reading what you posted this makes sense to me now.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

So then, to follow your logic, no one has a "right" NOT to participate in health care? If you're being consistent, you'd have to argue just as much for someone who chooses not to participate (by not purchasing health insurance) as someone who desires the Government to provide it?

But the person who chooses not to participate can't make that choice?

Again, who gets to decide that? What makes it a 'right' the Government can dictate or control personal access to?

I'm not in favor of it's existence. Not as an entitlement others are forced to participate in. As a privately funded and purchased insurance instrument...sure. But of individual volition, not commission by the heavy hand of big Government.

OK, so now we are getting into the context of the issue. Excellent! If you look at equality under the law and what government has done to make healthcare inequitable your comments make perfect sense, so let's go with that.

Let's say that instead of a mandate to procure health insurance that the government said... "ok, we're going to provide a mechanism by which any American who wants health insurance can get it at a reasonable cost and we're going to use funding that would have gone to disproportional share expenses to help to fund this, so no increase in taxes to support it. And in kind we are eliminating the requirement for hospital to provide care regardless of ability to pay. We will keep Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the very poor, but everyone else is on their own with either employer provided benefits or individual insurance."

That creates a level playing field and equality under the law for health care as a "right", even if it is a lower-case "right", if you understand my point. In that, here's the way to health care for all, but if you choose not to participate you're on your own.

 

[atlkvb]

OK, so now we are getting into the context of the issue. Excellent! If you look at equality under the law and what government has done to make healthcare inequitable your comments make perfect sense, so let's go with that.

Let's say that instead of a mandate to procure health insurance that the government said... "ok, we're going to provide a mechanism by which any American who wants health insurance can get it at a reasonable cost and we're going to use funding that would have gone to disproportional share expenses to help to fund this, so no increase in taxes to support it. And in kind we are eliminating the requirement for hospital to provide care regardless of ability to pay. We will keep Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the very poor, but everyone else is on their own with either employer provided benefits or individual insurance."

That creates a level playing field and equality under the law for health care as a "right", even if it is a lower-case "right", if you understand my point. In that, here's the way to health care for all, but if you choose not to participate you're on your own.

My point is simply you do not need the Government making those decisions. We can figure out how much if any "health care' we need without their edicts or mandates. A 'level playing field' can never exist in a free society. We are created equally, but not to the same ends or means.

In a pluralistic society that values Freedom (I hope) we should be allowed to decide for ourselves how much if any health care we need. We can also decide how to care for those who either can't or are unable to decide for themselves (like little Babies)

Amazing how they have no rights to Life before they're born, but the Government makes all sorts of demands on us otherwise.

My general philosophical belief and what I think works best is to let the people decide for themselves how much if any health care they either need or are willing to pay for. That goes for almost any other decisions they make.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

OK, so now we are getting into the context of the issue. Excellent! If you look at equality under the law and what government has done to make healthcare inequitable your comments make perfect sense, so let's go with that.

Let's say that instead of a mandate to procure health insurance that the government said... "ok, we're going to provide a mechanism by which any American who wants health insurance can get it at a reasonable cost and we're going to use funding that would have gone to disproportional share expenses to help to fund this, so no increase in taxes to support it. And in kind we are eliminating the requirement for hospital to provide care regardless of ability to pay. We will keep Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the very poor, but everyone else is on their own with either employer provided benefits or individual insurance."

That creates a level playing field and equality under the law for health care as a "right", even if it is a lower-case "right", if you understand my point. In that, here's the way to health care for all, but if you choose not to participate you're on your own.

Just to clarify, the Declaration of Independence uses a upper case "R" in the word rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Meaning that these are absolute.

 

[atlkvb]

Just to clarify, the Declaration of Independence uses a upper case "R" in the word rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Meaning that these are absolute.

OK

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

My general philosophical belief and what I think works best is to let the people decide for themselves how much if any health care they either need or are willing to pay for.

Fine, but don't make the rest of us pay for it by driving up hospital and insurance costs because you're too cheap to pay for health care. I had a friend once who said to me ..."I'm not planning for retirement, I'll let the government take care of me." We are no longer friends.

 

[atlkvb]

Fine, but don't make the rest of us pay for it by driving up hospital and insurance costs because you're too cheap to pay for health care. I had a friend once who said to me ..."I'm not planning for retirement, I'll let the government take care of me." We are no longer friends.

Well even if you or I chose not to provide our health insurance for ourselves, to me that doesn't give Government the authority to come in and force us to purchase it.

Lots of folks are driving around out there without the proper automobile Insurance too and you are correct we do pay for it, but no one is required to have it if they don't want to own a car.

Still we shop for and pay for it on our own if we decide to own a car, without coercion from Leviathan. Don't want to buy any auto insurance? Fine. Then don't drive or purchase or own a car.

Don't want to pay for your own health care? Nope can't do that...you're going to get fined, AND pay for insurance for the elderly AND pay for the care of illegals AND pay for health care of the poor AND pay for anyone else we think is entitled to that "right".(health care)

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

It is not a right in my opinion, I think a lot of people spend to much money on wants & expects the government to provide needs ....

You do realize that the average household income in the US is around $55,000. If somebody has 2-3 babies, or develops cancer, they can't afford to pay no matter what they spend on wants vs needs.

 

[atlkvb]

You do realize that the average household income in the US is around $55,000. If somebody has 2-3 babies, or develops cancer, they can't afford to pay no matter what they spend on wants vs needs.

So why is this financial and personal choice they make for themselves our (taxpayer's) problem?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Don't want to own any auto insurance? fine. Then don't drive or purchase or own an car.

FIFY

And that is the difference, you and I both know that in Georgia the State mandates auto insurance to get a tag for your car. And if you are caught driving without insurance it is against the law and you are fined and your car is impounded until you provide valid proof of insurance.

You can't say... if you're breathing the air you have to have health insurance, but you can make it equal by not increasing the costs on the rest of us by giving those without it a mechanism to slide by. Eliminate the mandate on care without regard to payment and everything will be fine. And the US will have plenty of money to assist those who do want to obtain insurance and eliminate the healthcare excise tax and not raise any other taxes to support it.

Our hospital up here in Ellijay closed last year because they couldn't survive because of indigent care losses. The folks without health insurance used the ER as primary care and they couldn't be turned away. After yet another year of million dollar losses, they had to close the ER first and then the entire facility.

So the healthcare insurance issue really hits home with me. I'm getting ready to retire and have made significant investments in my home up here. Now there is no hospital in the county and the closest ER is 20+ minutes away in the next county. What do you think my survival chances would be in the case of an emergency with an extra 20 minutes of transport time tacked on?

 

[atlkvb]

Eliminate the mandate on care without regard to payment and everything will be fine. And the US will have plenty of money to assist those who do want to obtain insurance and eliminate the healthcare excise tax and not raise any other taxes to support it.

This is essentially what I'm arguing WVex-pat. we don't need the mandates on those who chose not to participate. If you want health care, let's make it as easy to purchase, and as affordable for folks to shop for as possible by putting the consumer in charge of deciding what kind of care they want and in what amounts they need?

I don't see how Government coming and forcing the hand of everyone lowers costs or improves coverage. Even in the example of Georgia, which as you correctly said requires auto Insurance, the prices are going through the roof because of so many who still avoid the Law and drive anyway because they cant find affordable insurance.

The risk they take should be jail time and wage garnishment for causing damages they have no financial backing to repay loses with. However because of the Government mandates on auto owners, the result has been higher prices, less complete coverage options, and inadequate services for many who are priced out of the market for purchasing the exact types of insurance they need or to even self insure.

Just as in the case of your ER in Ellijay, the mandates to cover everyone regardless of their ability to pay eventually caused the ER to shut down. Suppose there were more mobile health facilities or community outpatient clinics designed to treat typical ER visits offered as low cost alternatives funded by consumers with health savings accounts of their own?

Using the power of their own resources and/or chosen health coverage, combined with low cost alternative health care choices, that ER room in Ellijay might still be open and functioning at a profit treating similar choice driven health care consumers with ability to pay for needed services on their own without any Government mandates on their care.

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

America has too many people, is too obese and too unhealthy to have universal healthcare IMO.

 

[MichiganHerd]

America has too many people, is too obese and too unhealthy to have universal healthcare IMO.

I blame it on all the fat people from Baltimore.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

You do realize that the average household income in the US is around $55,000. If somebody has 2-3 babies, or develops cancer, they can't afford to pay no matter what they spend on wants vs needs.

So why is this financial and personal choice they make for themselves our (taxpayer's) problem?

I think you mean "median" income, OM. Which means that half earned more and half earned less. Average US Household income is more like $72K.

And I would tend to agree with atlkvb, if you can only earn about $55k/yr you should have invested in condoms instead.

Cancer or other illnesses is another thing, but anyone married with a child and earning $55k or so should be getting healthcare insurance somehow someway. It's in your best and long-term interest.

 

[MountaineerWV]

So why is this financial and personal choice they make for themselves our (taxpayer's) problem?

Are you really this big of a POS? You call people's income a "choice"? When ONE operation costs more than a person's $55,000/year job, then you have a problem. And when a person has ONE child, and that child has to spend time in ICU, and the cost of that is over $200,000......then you have a problem.

But I guess it was those parent's "choice" to have a sick baby.........

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

This is essentially what I'm arguing WVex-pat. we don't need the mandates on those who chose not to participate. If you want health care, let's make it as easy to purchase, and as affordable as possible for folks to shop for as possible by putting the consumer in charge of deciding what kind of care they want and in what amounts they need?

I don't see how Government coming and forcing the hand of everyone lowers costs or improves coverage. Even in the example of Georgia, which as you correctly said requires auto Insurance the prices are going through the roof because of so many who avoid the Law and drive anyway.

The risk they take should be jail time and wage garnishment for causing damage they have no financial backing to repay loses with. However because of the Government mandates on insured auto owners, the result has been higher prices, less complete coverage options, and inadequate services for many who are priced out of the market for purchasing the exact types of insurance they need or even to self insure.

We're on the same page, my posts take two forms; what I think and what you asked in your original question. Some have gotten intertwined but I think you've got the drift.