No, I am suggesting they only decide what they will pay for. There is nothing inherently evil about that.
…just calling taxation tyranny does not make it so in all cases.
Yes. We have been through this before. It is just like how you have to pay school taxes and then if you want to send your kids to private school you have to pay again.
Like any taxation decision, there are always detail that need to be decided.
I didn’t say that.
A lot of these limitations and costs are because of government. What happens when government regulates industries is that is effectively a tax, which is a cost to the companies in that industry, and they just pass it along to the consumer. They don’t eat it like a lot of big government activists think they should.
Yes, taking my money, then deciding for me what they will allow me to have. Yep, I see evil in that.
In this case, it clearly is.
So, now my rights are to be compared to compulsory education, treated as a minor. There is a clear societal reason for education, done st the state and local level. No such societal need exists to force the vast majority of Americans who earn their healthcare through work off of those plans, confiscate their money in order to make decisions for them, without their (name removed by moderator)ut, about their healthcare and that of their family. There is none. No societal cause.
A dodge, Leaf. How will it be paid for? The general government has debt and unfunded responsibilities well over $110 TRILLION!
I think a strong case can be made for just such a societal cause. Just as it is good to have a society composed of educated people, so it is good to have a society where everyone has a base level of health care. We don’t want our people to be sick and dying. It hurts productivity and social cohesiveness.
It will be paid for by raising taxes. And since people won’t have to pay so much for healthcare themselves, they will have the money to pay those taxes, and then some. See, at least I am honest. I say it will be paid for by higher taxes.
I think that’s a low bar to be rewarded with.
And why should the wishes of such people stand in the way of universal health care? (I could mention that when universal K-12 schooling was not yet implemented, a lot of people did not want to invest in education, or even send their kids to school. Those people’s wishes were similarly denied and they did not stand in the way of universal K-12.)LeafByNiggle:
A lot of people don’t even invest in health insurance or health care, they prefer to pay as they need it instead of giving their money to an insurance company.
That’s exactly what we’re saying here, yes. Healthcare companies only want to sell healthcare to healthy people. Even if you take all the regulation out, healthcare companies won’t want to sell healthcare to people like me at a rate that can be afforded by someone who’s at an entry-level wage.
Health insurance companies are quite happy to sell large group policies to corporations, states for their employees, etc. If the government would get out of the way and allow free American citizens to freely and voluntarily form large associations for the purpose of negotiating with insurance companies and health providers, then individuals would not be in the position of either not being able to afford ACA policies or dependent on government programs like Medicaid.SuperLuigi:
That’s exactly what we’re saying here, yes. Healthcare companies only want to sell healthcare to healthy people. Even if you take all the regulation out, healthcare companies won’t want to sell healthcare to people like me at a rate that can be afforded by someone who’s at an entry-level wage.
And I appreciate that.
And the “winners” chosen by the government have no incentive to to succeed, because they risk nothing if they lose. The government (aka taxpayer) carries all the risk. Solyndra is a prime example of this.
Actually, they’re mostly quite happy to do that because they are compelled to by law. There’s laws around employer healthcare, you know. And a lot of those laws say that they can’t discriminate. It’s actually illegal for a company that provides health insurance to discriminate against an employee that costs more money on the healthcare plan. That’s what makes insurance companies so happy to sell these group policies to everyone - because the law says they have to (and this is well before ACA). I guarantee if you dropped all the laws, what you’d actually see happening is “we’ll only cover certain employees at certain rates, but if we think you’ll cost too much we won’t let you be on the policy.”
You said people not being healthy is a societal cause for single payer.
No, they are not. Insurance companies are not required by law to contract with corporations.
Sounds like an ideological position rather than an objective fact.
It is a moral position. There is no such thing as compulsory volunteerism. There is no such thing as coerced charity or statutory compassionJonNC:
Sounds like an ideological position rather than an objective fact.
I didn’t say there was.
True on charity. False on compassion. Government decisions are frequently and correctly made based on compassion. It is statutory because those who disagree with the decision are still bound by it. If you still need an example, consider any instance where the US has sent aid to countries during a natural disaster. Doing so does not always serve the interests of the US, as these victims do not always provide much to us in trade or otherwise. So in those instances such actions can only be because of compassion.
It is not compassion if it is compelled. When the Red Cross helps, that is compassion because the donors do so by free will.