Pretty simple question, that I'm curious to see the answers to. For those of you who think the bill was a good thing, why do you feel health insurance is a right that all people should have?

:popcorn:

Pretty simple question, that I'm curious to see the answers to. For those of you who think the bill was a good thing, why do you feel health insurance is a right that all people should have?

 

Of course I am going to be the first to respond for you ...

 

I wouldn't say it is a right. I would say everyone should have it. I think it is good public policy to do everything possible to make it accessible for all and pressure all to have it. But under this bill, if you REALLY, REALLY believe you shouldn't have health insurance, don't get it. Pay the fine if you get caught. The fine method will still probably be less expensive than the cost of insurance ... as long as you stay healthy

Of course I am going to be the first to respond for you ...

 

I wouldn't say it is a right. I would say everyone should have it. I think it is good public policy to do everything possible to make it accessible for all and pressure all to have it. But under this bill, if you REALLY, REALLY believe you shouldn't have health insurance, don't get it. Pay the fine if you get caught. The fine method will still probably be less expensive than the cost of insurance ... as long as you stay healthy

 

You should not have to pay a fine for exercising a right.

That is what the left is about, extending control over everyday decisions.

Why should you be fined for not buying a product?

Will Obama start fining people for not buying cars produced by his car company?

It isn't. Insurance companies should also be able to raise rates through the roof if someone is sick. It's a sad situation, but it has to be done. If I am in 5 car accidents will my car insurance go up?

Of course I am going to be the first to respond for you ...

 

I wouldn't say it is a right. I would say everyone should have it. I think it is good public policy to do everything possible to make it accessible for all and pressure all to have it. But under this bill, if you REALLY, REALLY believe you shouldn't have health insurance, don't get it. Pay the fine if you get caught. The fine method will still probably be less expensive than the cost of insurance ... as long as you stay healthy

I agreed with everything up to the bolded. If what you say is right how does this bill change anything? There will still be uninsured people getting sick.

 

How about instead of strong arming people into purchasing insurance you take measures to bring the cost of insurance down so there is no excuse for not having it.

I still continue to be amazed that the argument those opposed to this bill latch on to is centered on not buying health insurance. I have a simple question for all of you. Do any of you believe someone should not have health insurance?

I still continue to be amazed that the argument those opposed to this bill latch on to is centered on not buying health insurance. I have a simple question for all of you. Do any of you believe someone should not have health insurance?

 

It isn't centered around not buying health insurance at all. It's centered around me having to pay for the dead beat lazy loser who was too lazy to go to school, thus has no job, 3 kids, and a boatload of medical bills. I should not have to be forced to pay for those who can't afford to pay on their own.

It isn't centered around not buying health insurance at all. It's centered around me having to pay for the dead beat lazy loser who was too lazy to go to school, thus has no job, 3 kids, and a boatload of medical bills. I should not have to be forced to pay for those who can't afford to pay on their own.

 

You already are. That cost is built into what you get charged under the current system. This bill does a better job of forcing that "dead beat lazy loser who was too lazy to go to school, thus has no job, 3 kids, and a boatload of medical bills" to actually pay for his health costs. That is one of the main things I like about the bill. It forces the dead weight to contribute to the cost.

I still continue to be amazed that the argument those opposed to this bill latch on to is centered on not buying health insurance. I have a simple question for all of you. Do any of you believe someone should not have health insurance?

 

In a free society that is your choice to make.

There were other reforms that could have been tried to help control costs and help cover those who needed help, rather than pass this big government effort at controlling our basic decisions.

I still continue to be amazed that the argument those opposed to this bill latch on to is centered on not buying health insurance. I have a simple question for all of you. Do any of you believe someone should not have health insurance?

I personally think it's stupid to not have health insurance. That doesn't mean a citizen of this country should be forced to do so. It should be made affordable everywhere and people should be encouraged to buy it. If they choose not to then that should be their right.

Also, just to point out that it's not just health insurance, I'm flat-out against any and all government social programs.

I still continue to be amazed that the argument those opposed to this bill latch on to is centered on not buying health insurance. I have a simple question for all of you. Do any of you believe someone should not have health insurance?

Let me ask you a question. How many people that don't have health insurance are those that are young and think they'll be fine? It's more than you think. Far too many are more concerned with bling than health care. They don't want to drive a beater car, they have to own a PS3 and/or an xBox 360, they have to have the bigger house instead of settling for one better suited one for them, it goes on and on. You may think it's few, but I'm willing to bet it's a much larger percentage.

It isn't centered around not buying health insurance at all. It's centered around me having to pay for the dead beat lazy loser who was too lazy to go to school, thus has no job, 3 kids, and a boatload of medical bills. I should not have to be forced to pay for those who can't afford to pay on their own.

(Let me first say I am not necessarily in favor of what the President is signing in to law.)

 

It is a very interesting question and dilemma I struggle with when trying to evaluate this whole health care stuff. I feel your frustration with those abusing the system, in which case I agree with you. But do we as human being have any moral obligation to provide care to the "3 kids" who did not ask for this? Or should our moral obligation be only to ourselves? Fact is, there are an abundance of people who work diligently and do their best, but health care costs are so much it is not always possible.

 

To me I always view health care in this light. You have one family, they bust their tails, make $10,000,000 a year. Money is no object to them. Then we have family number two. They bust their tails, make a combined $75,000 a year. Both, in my estimation are living the American Dream. The question is, should one family be privy to more health benefits than the other simply because they make more money? The health industry, for many procedures and medications, has out priced family number two. Something about that does not feel right to me.

(Let me first say I am not necessarily in favor of what the President is signing in to law.)

 

It is a very interesting question and dilemma I struggle with when trying to evaluate this whole health care stuff. I feel your frustration with those abusing the system, in which case I agree with you. But do we as human being have any moral obligation to provide care to the "3 kids" who did not ask for this? Or should our moral obligation be only to ourselves? Fact is, there are an abundance of people who work diligently and do their best, but health care costs are so much it is not always possible.

 

To me I always view health care in this light. You have one family, they bust their tails, make $10,000,000 a year. Money is no object to them. Then we have family number two. They bust their tails, make a combined $75,000 a year. Both, in my estimation are living the American Dream. The question is, should one family be privy to more health benefits than the other simply because they make more money? The health industry, for many procedures and medications, has out priced family number two. Something about that does not feel right to me.

 

I believe you should lower the dollar amount. The amounts you have, both families should be able to afford insurance, if it is not a part of their pay package. There are all sorts of programs in place to help. The SCHIP covers people to 3 or 4 times the poverty level. Once again, this bill did not have to be passed in its present state to make some changes. There were less expensive and intrusive ways of helping.