And if a person can't pay for it, what then?
Same thing that happens anytime someone goes into debt presumably.
That system was so effective 40 million people still didn't have insurance.
I'm not an economics expert so I can't really say why exactly that was the case.
So, you're ok with forcing people to pay car insurance.
As long as it covers someone else.
If you crash into someone and they have to pay for the damage that's completely unfair because that's your fault. Considering there's no guarantee that you'll be able to afford it (Like you said, can't take blood from a turnip) if you want to drive you need to ensure that you aren't going to completely screw someone else over financially if you make a mistake. The alternative is debtor's prisons, and even I wouldn't go that far
However, you do have the right to screw yourself over.
No one is saying that the government should cover trivial surgeries like purely cosmetic surgery (the ones not for burn victims or accidents, mind you). People are saying that a government should at least keep people from being saddled with lifelong financial debt because of an accident or sickness
I'm not familiar with how debt is actually settled in court cases regarding it. I think that if you choose not to have health insurance and something happens you should pay the price of that decision, but I imagine the law already has some type of settlement on its books so that debt does NOT last for the rest of one's life. I'm not sure what the current bankruptcy laws are so I can't comment if they are appropriate or not.
Did you know that the individual mandate section of the ACA is an idea that originated in right-wing republican supported policy institute? Did you know that it's the same thing that Mitt Romney supported and enacted in Massachusetts? If you answer Yes, then you're being disingenuous by claiming that it's 'Obama supporters that insist...'
I know Mitt supported it, which is one reason I'm not a big fan of him, especially since he's now condemning Obama's law. The constitutional argument that VRWCAgent brought up once could be valid, that doing it on a state level is more acceptable than a federal level, but considering Mitt's other policy beliefs (Support of the federal drug war and support of the Patrot Act, which yes, I know are typically Republican beliefs that I strongly disagree with) I don't see how the state's rights argument applies to him in particular. So yeah, I guess its disingenuous. That said, while Romney himself supports that, I don't think most of his supporters do. Most of Obama's supporters do.
Besides which, nobody is forced to buy anything. There are incentives for doing so. You won't go to jail if you don't have health insurance.
This argument always annoyed me. Its not a tax, its a fine. Same thing if you break a speeding law, you get a fine. This is a fine. Its not a tax. Thus it is, in fact, illegal not to carry health insurance.
Car insurance... see this is where the analogy helps to illuminate the issue. If a person with no health insurance winds up in the hospital then the hospital can only get money from the person by taking them to court. And unless the person happens to be of above-average income, there's likely no way the person can pay it even if a court judgement were reached. It's like someone just ran into your car, and they don't have insurance. You can't get blood from a turnip.
And do you know why we call you out for not appearing to be very christian? Because it seems to us that you want it both ways: you want your religion to intrude into other peoples' lives when it suits your agenda, but you don't want to be held to that same standard when your personal beliefs are contrary to what you interpret sacred sentences to say. If you really don't want to be needled about it, then simply don't use religious justifications for your political views. It's just that simple. Don't like gays marrying? Fine - be a jerk. Just don't try and use the bible to justify why you can't possibly allow it.
As for charity being sufficient? Why do you think that's the case? Can you point to any examples where charity is sufficient to alleviate poverty, provide for the sick or elderly, feed hungry children, and pay the rent of people who are underemployed? Show me the evidence that christian societies can actually solve these problems without government. They've had 2000 years to work on it, and countless countries. Show me the evidence
They haven't. I was defining a "Christian" country as one where a majority of people thought about Christianity in the way you described it, and believed in it. I'd suspect such a country would have enough generous people that the poor would not need government help.
Just another thing I want to say about the UHC thing, the unintentional consequence of it is forcing people to live healthy lives, or taxing them if they choose to live a less healthy life. Mayor Bloomberg is clearly an example of this, banning large sodas in his city and some other people in the city government wanting to also limit the sizes of other junk. I think such laws are moronic, but its the inevitable result of everyone paying for everyone else. I'd rather have the freedom to do as I please than the security that inevitably brings less liberty with it.
Let us use a real example of this point. I know this guy, he lost his job when the factory closed, healthcare gone, pension gone, he's near retirement age. He's riding a bike, and gets hit by a car that does not stop and is never found. He's on the hook for some $60,000 in health costs, and has no possible way of paying them. If he tries, he's in poverty through his entire retirement.
How is that fair?
Its not, and that's a fair criticism. He doesn't seem to have made the choice not to have health insurance either. It just happened.
Plus someone else was responsible and just plain out didn't get caught in that case. In that case I think it makes a lot more sense for society as a whole to pick up the bill, assuming the responsible party cannot be caught, than for the one man who happened to be unlucky yet did not make an irresponsible choice to be stuck with the whole bill.
I guess different circumstances are different and its extremely complicated to write a legal system that treats everyone fairly.
Here's the logic that goes into my thinking....
1. You should be able to choose to not have health insurance, with the consequences that that brings, namely, the risk of a ton of debt, being known and on your shoulders (Nobody should be forced to buy health insurance.)
2. UHC is a bad idea because, as good as it sounds, it is going to lead to laws requiring healthy behavior because people are not going to want to pay for other people's bad choices.
3. We are responsible for our own bad choices.
4. People who end up in that situation through no fault of their own should not be treated the same way as those who reached there through their own choices.
Its probably impossible to hit all four of those with perfection. I wonder how close we could get, if we wished too...
