Insurance is a pool of money people pay into in order to mitigate risk, voluntarily, nothing is being imposed, no one is forced to work for the benefit of another (i.e. slavery). Again, you're trying to equate a voluntary system of shared risk with a system of wealth transfer imposed at the point of a gun. The premiums don't necessarily go up, if the insurance companies have set rates appropriate with the individual's risk. Other than lupus, I or a family member has had to deal with each of the afflictions you cite, and not once have they been dropped by private insurance. That would be a violation of the insurance contract. Whether or not I have a moral obligation to pay for a complete stranger's health care is an interesting ethical discussion (why not have global universal health care then? We are all in this together right? Shouldn't my wealth be allocated to the third world rather than PhillyRocket? Don't they need it alot more?). The question is, does the collective majority have the right to impose their moral values on the individual, by force. PhillyRocket believes people should behave a certain way, and rather than persuasion (please donate to the Red Cross), he favors coersion via the state, to make people behave the way he thinks they ought to.
THese types of arguments make intelligence cry. Every government service can be couched as "a system of wealth transfer imposed at the point of a gun" ~ accordingly it's of very little meaning and gets us approximately nowhere. The work of actually governing requires that people be able to get past this.
No, the state has a monopoly on the legal use of force, and all state actions are backed by the use of force. The use of force is only justified in defense of someone else's rights. All other uses of force are immoral. Thus all other state actions, like heath care mandates, are immoral. I'm not willing to "get past" the state forcing individuals to behave a certain way.
Uh, ok so the government building a road or a bridge or providing public education is immoral - at least we know your brand of crazy. Then you should either move, because that has been a feature of human society for tens of thousands of years, or else just shut up and let the adults govern.
The war to save this country's soul from socialism has already started in my book. If blood needs to spill once again for freedom than so be it.
Chance are we'd win. Since, you know, you guys aren't allowed, by your own standards, to have a federal standing army (NO GUBBERMENT!!!). So you'd all be free agents/mercenaries, and we'd just wipe you out one by one. And then we'd lulz all the way home while you go get denied health care for your battle wounds by your insurance provider.
Our standard is the US Constitution, and a belief in the second amendment etc. Freedom over tyranny would prevail as always.
Do you think the second amendment would the keep the govt. from squashing you? You take whatever fire arm you want and go stand up against a tank, or a bomber, and you'll do great. I support the second amendment, but I don't for second believe that a bunch of citizens armed with fire arms could defeat the U.S. military.
I didn't propose anything. I did hearken back to the days when insurance seemed to actually work in the days prior to HMOs. I suppose I indicated that a method of going back to this wold be preferable, as the insurance market would be open. Open markets = greater competition = ultimately the best product for the best price. But for this to happen, we must find a way to get the insurance and pharmaceutical companies hands out of the politicians pockets. Which is the luxury? Having the system where you can get what you need when you need it or it being more efficient at the bureaucratic/administrative level? The wait times experienced in other countries often mean the difference between life and death. Thank god we don't have that here. Which, as it pertains to health care received, is what I'm arguing. Our system now allows for whatever treatment you need, when you need it. This, imo, is a wonderful thing, and if the proposed changes to our system will negatively effect this, then I cannot support your argument or ideals.
Because if a doc were to diagnose you over the telephone, and you were misdiagnosed, that doctor would lose his license to practice and you could sure him for all he is worth. And they have to lab test things like strep after performing a swab of the back of your throat. That $100 (or however much) pays the doc, the RN, the lab techs, and for the cost of actually performing the diagnostic tests. And you ought to be able to see a PA (physicians assistant) or an RNP (registered nurse practitioner), both of whom practice under a doctor, which might serve to keep your costs down. And the common man self-medicating with antibiotics (as in NOT under the care of a licensed physician) can result in superinfections, and then you'd REALLY be having a bad day.
You should focus on persuading people what they ought to do, rather than what they ought to be able to do. They ought to be able to do whatever they choose. There is a huge moral difference between "you shouldn't self-medicate" and "you shouldn't be allowed to self-medicate".
The road and school are not immoral. But no school or road can justify taking wealth by force. "Shut up and go away because this is the way things have always been" is not a persuasive argument. Had our founders withered under such weak ridicule, our republic wouldn't exist today.
I'm still reading through this thread but wanted to respond to this. When I was in Singapore I had to go to the hospital and even had a surgery with no problem. In Hong Kong I once got intestinal flu and went to government run clinic with no problem and no waiting. In both cases what I ended up paying, as a foreigner was much less than what I would've paid in the US with care just as good if not better than I would've gotten in the US.
I've read through the thread and here are my two pesos. Health care definately isn't an inalienable right and as another poster noted there are few, if any, inalienable rights under the US Constitution. In fact the right to life (not even talking about abortion) isn't inalienable as it can be taken away as long as due process is observed. Even though health care is essential to life so are things like food and shelter but those aren't rights either. The problem with calling those things rights are then you have to define what level those rights are guarenteed, such as is everyone entitled to 3 square meals a day and if so what constitutes a square meal? Health care gets even trickier since as Pgabriel noted everyone dies eventually but if health care is a right to what extent is that right guarenteed to stave off death? If health care is a right its one that will almost be impossible to grant for the whole population since you get the problem of either watering it down what is granted to be almost meaningless or else you truly get your death panels. None of this means that government shouldn't be involved in this. As been noted roads and garbage services aren't rights either but as part of a creating a prosperous and stable country those things are necessary. In my opinion health care is necessary and the more access and insurance we can give to people the better off this country will be.
Premuims ABSOLUTELY go up depending on the number of uninsured people there are. Auto-insurance in Harris county is far more expensive than more rural counties in part because of the number of uninsured motorists. Your risk is NEVER calculated in isolation if every other mitigating factor. Insurance companies evaluate the cost/reward benefit of whole groups of people ...not each individual. It's strictly a numbers game. Insurance is socialism to the core. The only question is who runs it? The people with a vestiged interest to profit off you? ...or the people that tend to waste a lot of money but are constitutionally required to answer to the people? Neither system is perfect.
Can I presume then that you refuse to pay property and gasoline taxes, heck any taxes since general revenue funds often get shifted to cover roads and schools.
