Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

[Squiggy]

Americans shouldn't be required to do anything. Kind of flies in the face of that whole "land of the free" deal.

So did slavery. So, songs aside...it's a pretty worthless phrase.

You do know that slavery has been gone for 144 years, right?

Yeah, but all those people who march around blindly quoting the founding fathers at rallies seem to ignore that.

Women too.

And men who didn't own property.

I bet they don't even realize that the people didn't have a vote in the Senate until 1913 or even the President the first couple of times. Well, they did have a vote...but it didn't matter.

Ah, the good old days.

 

[Chaos Descending]

This is true, but then again I still think that direct election of Senators was a bad idea. Senators are supposed to represent the State as an entity, and the Representatives were supposed to errrrrr... represent, the people of the state. But I digress.

Nevertheless, the faults of a system don't automatically invalidate the ideals espoused by that system especially in a place like the USA where the trend has historically been to strive toward fulfillment of those ideals.

 

[ST-One]

This is true, but then again I still think that direct election of Senators was a bad idea. Senators are supposed to represent the State as an entity, and the Representatives were supposed to errrrrr... represent, the people of the state. But I digress.

Nevertheless, the faults of a system don't automatically invalidate the ideals espoused by that system especially in a place like the USA where the trend has historically been to strive toward fulfillment of those ideals.

And one of those ideals would be the promotion of the general welfare of the population, right?

 

[Squiggy]

But when you invoke the memory of a certain person or era while ignoring said faults is ignorant at best verging on disingenuous. One can quote Jefferson regarding liberty all day long but if one fails to realize that he owned slaves (and was horrible with his finances, being near broke towards the end of his life) then one can't truly argue the pros of anything...especially when it's about finances or liberty.

 

[Chaos Descending]

And one of those ideals would be the promotion of the general welfare of the population, right?

It's in the preamble of the Constitution as one of the reasons that "we the people" do ordain and establish said Constitution, plus it's listed in Article I Section 8 as one of the rationales for the power to tax, so obviously.

But when you invoke the memory of a certain person or era while ignoring said faults is ignorant at best verging on disingenuous. One can quote Jefferson regarding liberty all day long but if one fails to realize that he owned slaves (and was horrible with his finances, being near broke towards the end of his life) then one can't truly argue the pros of anything...especially when it's about finances or liberty.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[RyanKCR]

When did I say I oppose reform? Um, never. But yes, if under a reformed system that provides equal access and affordability, if you cannot pay and you are able-bodied, it is indded your own fault.

That's exactly why I say you are dishonest in this debate.

You claim to support "reform" but in reality oppose all meaningful reform proposals.

Meaningful reform to one person could be disastrous to another. That's what I don't think you get. You are being dishonest when you say that if we don't support your view then we oppose all meaningful reform. By supporting what you support I believe you oppose all meaningful reform.

 

[ST-One]

Meaningful reform to one person could be disastrous to another.

Oh, for heaven's sake! How often do we need to tell you that the quality of your health care will not drop just because the costs/risks are spread over a larger pool of insured citizens?

 

[Chaos Descending]

Are the number of doctors, clinics, and hospitals going to increase, decrease, or stay the same?

 

[ST-One]

Are the number of doctors, clinics, and hospitals going to increase, decrease, or stay the same?

Well, I guess that would be determined by the need, now wouldn't it?

Do you think everyone will get sick all of a sudden just because they have insurance?

 

[Chaos Descending]

No, they're going to go see the doctor for less severe things than they used to, because now it will be paid for.

 

[ST-One]

No, they're going to go see the doctor for less severe things than they used to, because now it will be paid for.

Yes, with their taxes, which would rise if the cost rise to far.

BTW: That's what doctors are there for: to take care of the medical treatment of people.
And, even something that might seem 'less severe' could escalate into something... much more severe (and costly) if not treated properly.

 

[Squiggy]

No, they're going to go see the doctor for less severe things than they used to, because now it will be paid for.

They do that now, they just go to the ER.

 

[Chaos Descending]

No, they're going to go see the doctor for less severe things than they used to, because now it will be paid for.

Yes, with their taxes, which would rise if the cost rise to far.

BTW: That's what doctors are there for: to take care of the medical treatment of people.
And, even something that might seem 'less severe' could escalate into something... much more severe (and costly) if not treated properly.

That's not my point. My point is that you can guarantee that there will be demand spike, and the effects of that need to be looked at.

 

[ST-One]

No, they're going to go see the doctor for less severe things than they used to, because now it will be paid for.

Yes, with their taxes, which would rise if the cost rise to far.

BTW: That's what doctors are there for: to take care of the medical treatment of people.
And, even something that might seem 'less severe' could escalate into something... much more severe (and costly) if not treated properly.

That's not my point. My point is that you can guarantee that there will be demand spike, and the effects of that need to be looked at.

As Squiggy said, that demand is already there and being met at the ER, at the extra expense (via taxes) of all.

 

[SeerSGB]

Yes, with their taxes, which would rise if the cost rise to far.

BTW: That's what doctors are there for: to take care of the medical treatment of people.
And, even something that might seem 'less severe' could escalate into something... much more severe (and costly) if not treated properly.

That's not my point. My point is that you can guarantee that there will be demand spike, and the effects of that need to be looked at.

As Squiggy said, that demand is already there and being met at the ER, at the extra expense (via taxes) of all.

Taxes and increased costs passed on to people who do pay, and then into higher insurance premiums to offset the increased cost of medical care.

Plus there's the long term savings by catching problems sooner and before they turn into more costly issues.

 

[Marc]

This is true, but then again I still think that direct election of Senators was a bad idea. Senators are supposed to represent the State as an entity, and the Representatives were supposed to errrrrr... represent, the people of the state. But I digress.

Then you clearly don't understand the role of the senate as a house of review and the state's house. It's not supposed to be a rubber stamp or a brick wall which you can get when you appoint not elect.

Appointment of senators leads to a perversion of the process. You only need to look north to Canada with it's appointed Senate (and where there's a now a push for elected senators). Steven Harper stated as election promise not to politically stack the senate but when he needed the votes he turned around and did just (appointed Tory party hacks to upper house as rewards for political service).

Roads=vehicle registration fees and gas taxes. Drive more, pay more.

30% would be a bit high, so you can imagine that in my "perfect system" the federal budget is much, much, smaller.

Not going to work.

Fuel taxes are probably already in place and can you can't make distance travelled as part of the registration becasue you don't know how far people will drive. That's why it's currently a flat rate based on things such as car make/model/specification)

 

[Gertch]

Oh, for heaven's sake! How often do we need to tell you that the quality of your health care will not drop just because the costs/risks are spread over a larger pool of insured citizens?

Often. Now tell me that my same income is going feed and cloth my family the same even though fees, costs, and taxes are rising for everything.

 

[Chaos Descending]

As Squiggy said, that demand is already there and being met at the ER, at the extra expense (via taxes) of all.

I think the impact of abuse of ERs is overstated in this case.

I think the number of people who would go to the doctor if they had the flu if they had insurance is much bigger than the number of people who currently go to the ER for the flu with no insurance.

Roads=vehicle registration fees and gas taxes. Drive more, pay more.

30% would be a bit high, so you can imagine that in my "perfect system" the federal budget is much, much, smaller.

Not going to work.

Fuel taxes are probably already in place and can you can't make distance travelled as part of the registration becasue you don't know how far people will drive. That's why it's currently a flat rate based on things such as car make/model/specification)

Fuel taxes could be raised. Buy more gas pay more tax.

Vehicle registration would not be based on mileage. The amount of gas you buy would be based on mileage.

This isn't rocket science. I'm not sure what you based this "not going to work" business on.

 

[Marc]

As Squiggy said, that demand is already there and being met at the ER, at the extra expense (via taxes) of all.

I think the impact of abuse of ERs is overstated in this case.

I think the number of people who would go to the doctor if they had the flu if they had insurance is much bigger than the number of people who currently go to the ER for the flu with no insurance.

Roads=vehicle registration fees and gas taxes. Drive more, pay more.

30% would be a bit high, so you can imagine that in my "perfect system" the federal budget is much, much, smaller.

Not going to work.

Fuel taxes are probably already in place and can you can't make distance travelled as part of the registration becasue you don't know how far people will drive. That's why it's currently a flat rate based on things such as car make/model/specification)

Fuel taxes could be raised. Buy more gas pay more tax.

Vehicle registration would not be based on mileage. The amount of gas you buy would be based on mileage.

This isn't rocket science. I'm not sure what you based this "not going to work" business on.

Raising fuel taxes will have a massive inflationary effect because a) cost of fuel is on the measure to determine the CPI/rate of inflation b) it impacts on all sectors as an increase cost. Every single thing you buy has a transport component in it's cost and fuel price is a component of that cost.

 

[SeerSGB]

As Squiggy said, that demand is already there and being met at the ER, at the extra expense (via taxes) of all.

I think the impact of abuse of ERs is overstated in this case.

I think the number of people who would go to the doctor if they had the flu if they had insurance is much bigger than the number of people who currently go to the ER for the flu with no insurance.

Not going to work.

Fuel taxes are probably already in place and can you can't make distance travelled as part of the registration becasue you don't know how far people will drive. That's why it's currently a flat rate based on things such as car make/model/specification)

Fuel taxes could be raised. Buy more gas pay more tax.

Vehicle registration would not be based on mileage. The amount of gas you buy would be based on mileage.

This isn't rocket science. I'm not sure what you based this "not going to work" business on.

Raising fuel taxes will have a massive inflationary effect because a) cost of fuel is on the measure to determine the CPI/rate of inflation b) it impacts on all sectors as an increase cost. Every single thing you buy has a transport component in it's cost and fuel price is a component of that cost.

You'd have to exempt the transportation and freight sectors and stick the tax on private fuel usage.