I said almost for a reason. Clearly being a carrier of an infectious disease represents a potential threat to the rights of others. They would not be wrong in using force to protect themselves. We enter into a society for mutual protection of individual rights. Not to have a majority control private individual behavior. That being said, there are plenty of mutual aid organizations that people enter into or contribute to, but they do so voluntarily, without compulsion. Private insurance is a form of this.
It would be irrational if I got nothing in return (or it might not be, if I was simply charitable). In this case, while I would be obligated to help pay for their health care, they would have the same obligation. It's a (rational) mechanism for mitigating risk. But the pool of money would not be enough if people weren't charged premiums based on their health risk (many an insurance company has gone under for inaccurate evaluation of risk). If it's illegal to discriminate when assessing health risk, that money has to come from somewhere. That comes in the form of higher premiums, or the mandate, which compels people to pay a premium when they were paying nothing before. Either way, someone's premiums are going up, or the insurance company goes under.
I guess you willfuly ignored the fluoride example? How do you justify the government putting flouride in water in your situation? You may think that, but that is a post-modern Walter Mitty-style "rugged individualist" fantasy, invented in the modern world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract In any case, once your "private individual behavior" imposes a drag on the collective society, it is no longer "private individual behavior". "Private individual behavior" is things like screwing whomever you want in your bedroom. Nobody is preventing you from not buying insurance. You just have to pay a fine to offset the cost of your buffet-style pick-and-choose individualism when you get a heart attack and go to a public ER and demand treatment despite not having insurance. Your right to not have insurance is perfectly preserved. There is an old saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes". I don't really believe that, but I do know there is nobody who falls back on "rugged individualism" and refuses aid when they are suffering cardiac arrest. If you want to make me believe in the fantasy of self-reliance, I require that the people against public health vote when the chips are down. If I see that, you might convince me.
I don't think they should turn them away, but they certainly have a right to. It's their hospital after all. But it's also my choice not to patronize hospitals with such a policy. It's up to the provider of the service what policies they want to have. If you don't like it, start up your own EMT service, or invest in one that has policies you prefer. I'm skeptical that you could force enough uninsured to sign up to offset the additional burden. But even so, if you weren't paying anything before, and now you are forced into a risk pool, your premiums have effectively gone up. Again, do you really think all of this compulsion will work out, that it will result in efficiency? It sounds like something cooked up in a classroom, which it probably was. What incentive is there to keep the cost of care down since people are now forced to pay for it? It's a guaranteed wealth transfer to the health care industry by force. This requirement should be abolished. In a system without force, no one would be compelled to pay for anyone else's care.
Hold on, what happened to the self-righteous pronouncement that: now you're saying that your misfortune entitles you to the wealth of another. Which is it?
Awesome, mother brings child into the ER with appendicitis. Clerk asks if they have insurance or any other way to pay. Mother says no. Security escorts mother and child to the parking lot where the appendix ruptures and the child dies in her mother's arms. By abolishing the mandate to require ERs to stabilize anyone regardless of their ability to pay this is the scenario that WILL go down and apparently you support. If we are to mandate ERs to treat you then we should mandate you to have insurance to cover treatment. If you really want people dying in the streets to preserve this glorified free markets abomination that you think is so wonderful then I sincerely hope you lose your job and insurance the day before that you need an appendectomy.
It's pretty apparent that many of these fringe, free-market, neo-Libertarian, tea party ideologues have never really thought through the real-world ramifications of their political beliefs.
I'm in NO WAY agreeing with the way insurance companies run, and I really believe it can be fixed. Let be perfectly honest though. In a capitalistic society that we live in, lets say you owned the insurance company. Are you going to let someone who already has cancer get insurance when you know it is going to cost you 1000s upon 1000s of dollars with no chance of making any profit. If that is the case they are going to be run out of business. It doesn't make practical sense. There has to be a better way, but mandating insurance for everyone, and giving free insurance for people who can't afford it so I have to pay for their insurance is NOT the way in my opinion. That is socialistic as hell, and yea not everyone has health insurance, but that's how life is it isn't fair. I have a lot more than many people, but I also would really love to have things that other people have and I don't. There are plenty of countries much worse off AND without health insurance, are we going to pay for theirs as well? Why not just take all of our money and no matter how much you work you all get same benefits and we share everything around the world?
So there must be a better way, but you don't know what it is. But you know that the way that works in all sorts of countries all over the world is definitely not it. Yes?
All of this would be so much easier if people took the time to understand how insurance works. Let me give you a scenario. You have Lupus. You go to get a job and no one will hire you unless you agree not to participate in the insurance plan. You can't get insurance on the private market because of your preexisting condition so you have two choices, pay everything out of pocket which even working two jobs you couldn't afford or get on Medicaid which as you've pointed out is terrible because other people, taxpayers in this case are paying for your healthcare. It's not your fault you have Lupus, or diabetes, or cancer, or about a thousand other diseases. Life's just not fair, so for the rest of your life you are going to just work to pay for a disease that it not your fault. Scenario 2: Your child has a disease, autism, Lupus, cancer, or whatever. In this new world employers can refuse to higher you based on you and your dependents medical records. It's actually more fair than discriminating based on poor credit or a prior felony. There is a chance you might steal and cost the company money if you have bad credit but if your kid is sick, it is guaranteed premiums will rise for everyone in the company because of the increased healthcare costs. So now because your kid is sick, you can't get a job. Afterall why should any company hire you because they know you are going to cost them "1000s upon 1000s of dollars." Since you buy into this capitalistic ideal then you had better not get sick, marry someone who might get sick, or have a kid who might get sick. If you do then you should vote to allow businesses to discriminate against you for prior medical history. After all life isn't fair.
