Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='UncleBob']For the record, I don't take advantage of "Free public schooling". ;)[/QUOTE]

Did you go to public school?

I did and I still feel horrible that the government sent agents in to forcibly separate the money needed by gunpoint. It was almost like a million little Wacos just to get us some new science text books.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Did you go to public school?

I did and I still feel horrible that the government sent agents in to forcibly separate the money needed by gunpoint. It was almost like a million little Wacos just to get us some new science text books.[/QUOTE]

Stop paying your taxes for long enough and you'll see your own little Waco.

Just because everyone willingly bends over, it doesn't mean the threat still isn't there.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I have private health coverage outside of Walmart's offerings.[/quote]

You and your whole family is covered entirely privately?

On that same token, you could move to a different country that offers socialized health care.
Click to expand...

It is much easier to find a nice country that has universal health care then it is to find a country that doesn't tax you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']Did you go to public school?[/quote]

It sometimes seems as if 99 percent of those who complain about public schools went to a public school...

But please try not to let Bob derail this thread and turn into one about public schools. He tried that and failed like 50 pages ago.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

1.) No mandate for individual coverage.
2.) No raising taxes to cover spending.
3.) No deficit spending to cover spending.

I don't think those are unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

I think 2 and 3 are reasonable. Number 1 not really as it makes 2 and 3 much harder as people without health care drive up costs when they get a serious injury or illness and have to leach on the system since they can't pay for their care and have no coverage.
 
I forgot. A country made by immigrants should actively force illegals to live in the shadows just because they're mostly dirty Mexicans, right?

It's a horrible thing to treat human beings like, well, human beings.
 
[quote name='depascal22']
Churches don't have enough money to serve everyone. Having the government step in will (hopefully) even the playing field. EVERYONE in America will have a chance to get decent medical care without cashing out 401(k)s, foreclosing on mortgages, and maxing out credit cards. [/quote]
This is amusing because THESE are the people you feel need to be "evened out" by confiscating their wealth to spread to those that didn't save in a 401k, didn't invest in real estate, and cannot get a credit card because they're a high credit risk. I'm really confused, now, about who's underprivlidgeness you are supposedly fighting for? Now you want to help the middle class as well as the poor people?

Let me review this argument again for my own sanity. We need to even the playing field. We need to fund health care for everyone by taking the money people have made and spreading it between all persons equally to give service to everyone. We know from assumptive history that rich people don't pay taxes because they have shelters, loopholes, and good tax acountants. Therefore, we need to tax those who can pay, like the middle class, to pay for our program. We can't really do that because it's not politically practical. We'll obscure this revenue by making laws that tax businesses, corporations, industries, and retail outlets. The end result is that the general consumers pay those taxes and those general consumers are the middle class. Then, we'll give subsidies to the poor so that they can buy basic necessities leaving any money they have left over to buy that new color TV and the new Air Magneto Sneakers for their child. They don't have to use that little money to invest in their future or rainy day anyway because that's being taken care of already. Got it. Now the system works and everyone is happy. Gee, I can't fathom why all those racist white people don't like this plan. They must be GOP plants trying to gum up the system.

Again, no one has a problem that government takes money at gun point for police, fire, and education. Why not healthcare? It just seems hypocritical that most people take advantage of free public schooling but get their panties in a twist about health care.
Click to expand...
We also have local recourse with "the government" taking money for police, fire, and schools. They are called millages, and we choose whether or not to renew them, extend them, raise, or lower them. We also vote on bond issues to build police stations, high schools, and fire stations. In addition, if I don't like the tax rate, I'll move. Or at the very least, canvass my neighborhood and throw the bastards out in the next election.

It sounds like you may have never heard of this process. And they may only take your property, not put you in jail as would likely happen for non-payment of federal income tax.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']This is amusing because THESE are the people you feel need to be "evened out" by confiscating their wealth to spread to those that didn't save in a 401k, didn't invest in real estate, and cannot get a credit card because they're a high credit risk. I'm really confused, now, about who's underprivlidgeness you are supposedly fighting for? Now you want to help the middle class as well as the poor people?[/quote]

Try reading the rest of the thread, this is about more than just poor people.
 
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=218
Part of Ron Paul's editorial on health care reform:
Last Wednesday the nation was riveted to the President's speech on healthcare reform before Congress. While the President's concern for the uninsured is no doubt sincere, his plan amounts to a magnanimous gift to the health insurance industry, despite any implications to the contrary.

For decades the insurance industry has been lobbying for mandated coverage for everyone. Imagine if the cell phone industry or the cable TV industry received such a gift from government? If government were to fine individuals simply for not buying a corporation's product, it would be an incredible and completely unfair boon to that industry, at the expense of freedom and the free market. Yet this is what the current healthcare reform plans intend to do for the very powerful health insurance industry.

The stipulation that pre-existing conditions would have to be covered seems a small price to pay for increasing their client pool to 100 of the American people. A big red flag, however, is that they would also have immunity from lawsuits, should they fail to actually cover what they are supposedly required to cover, so these requirements on them are probably meaningless. Mandates on all citizens to be customers of theirs, however, are enforceable with fines and taxes.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']1.) No mandate for individual coverage.[/QUOTE]
If you've mentioned before why you feel that way I apologize for asking again. I haven't read this thread because at this point it's a bit intimidating to try to catch up to.

Why don't you support it? It seems to me that people are going to get sick. They're going to go to the hospital. And then they get to have someone else pay for it. Why not force people to pay since we all know they're all absolutely going to use it at some point?
 
[quote name='speedracer']If you've mentioned before why you feel that way I apologize for asking again. I haven't read this thread because at this point it's a bit intimidating to try to catch up to.

Why don't you support it? It seems to me that people are going to get sick. They're going to go to the hospital. And then they get to have someone else pay for it. Why not force people to pay since we all know they're all absolutely going to use it at some point?[/QUOTE]

Maybe they can't afford it.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=218 Part of Ron Paul's editorial on health care reform:[/QUOTE]

Well the individual mandate is definitely a problem if there's no public option, since it would do what he's saying.

IMO, best: public option + mandate (with help for those who can't afford it, of course); OK: public option, no mandate; terrible: no public option + mandate.

We're supposed to be fixing healthcare here, not giving health insurance companies more customers and government subsidies. But of course the health insurance companies would love that, so it would be easiest to get that through congress - it will be pitched as the perfect compromise.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Maybe they can't afford it.[/QUOTE]
But then if they break an arm or a head or a kidney, the state pays for it anyway right? So then wouldn't it make sense to put them on a "plan" that at least allows the government to negotiate the price in advance?

I was under the impression that this was one source of "savings" under Obama's ideal plan.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Maybe they can't afford it.[/QUOTE]

Their are waivers and subsidies for people who can't afford the minimum coverage in the proposals I've seen.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Their are waivers and subsidies for people who can't afford the minimum coverage in the proposals I've seen.[/QUOTE]

Of course there are. That's the whole point of the health care argument. GIVE free healthcare to those who can't afford it. Not subsidized insurance, free, on demand, health services for all while all of the taxpaying citizens pool their money to pay the bill.

Let's stop dancing around all this "single payer", "coverage", "subsidy", and all the other euphemisms we use to obfuscate the fact that we want a fully socialized healthcare system to cover all people, equally, from cradle to grave. Is this not the goal? Or are we going to compromise our principles by negotiating a moderate solution that doesn't work, creates a system that rivals the tax code in complexity, and only serves to make everyone miserable except for the super-rich who can pay out-of-pocket for anything they want, and the new bureaucrats who can siphon off illicit money?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Let's stop dancing around all this "single payer", "coverage", "subsidy", and all the other euphemisms we use to obfuscate the fact that we want a fully socialized healthcare system to cover all people, equally, from cradle to grave. Is this not the goal? Or are we going to compromise our principles by negotiating a moderate solution that doesn't work, creates a system that rivals the tax code in complexity, and only serves to make everyone miserable except for the super-rich who can pay out-of-pocket for anything they want, and the new bureaucrats who can siphon off illicit money?[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding! - we have a winner!
 
[quote name='speedracer']If you've mentioned before why you feel that way I apologize for asking again. I haven't read this thread because at this point it's a bit intimidating to try to catch up to.

Why don't you support it? It seems to me that people are going to get sick. They're going to go to the hospital. And then they get to have someone else pay for it. Why not force people to pay since we all know they're all absolutely going to use it at some point?[/QUOTE]

I don't support a mandate on health insurance for two reasons.

First of all, it *is* a tax increase.

Second, I believe it violates my right to Freedom of Association. If an individual makes a conscious decision that they do not want to associate with health insurance companies, they should be allowed to make that choice.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I believe it violates my right to Freedom of Association. If an individual makes a conscious decision that they do not want to associate with health insurance companies, they should be allowed to make that choice.[/QUOTE]

If you are allowed that choice, should hospitals be allowed to deny you assistance unless you prepay for it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First of all, it *is* a tax increase.[/quote]

That isn't a reason.

Second, I believe it violates my right to Freedom of Association.
Click to expand...

Libertarian dingbats use that phrase differently than a rational person would.

BTW Bob you never answered whether you or your family is covered (in part or otherwise) by government programs or subsidies.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you are allowed that choice, should hospitals be allowed to deny you assistance unless you prepay for it?[/QUOTE]

That's too difficult to regulate. If you do use the emergency room, AFTER deciding you don't want health coverage, and it's discovered that you turned down health care coverage, I'm not opposed to garnisheeing wages to pay for it.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Of course there are. That's the whole point of the health care argument. GIVE free healthcare to those who can't afford it. Not subsidized insurance, free, on demand, health services for all while all of the taxpaying citizens pool their money to pay the bill.

Let's stop dancing around all this "single payer", "coverage", "subsidy", and all the other euphemisms we use to obfuscate the fact that we want a fully socialized healthcare system to cover all people, equally, from cradle to grave. Is this not the goal? Or are we going to compromise our principles by negotiating a moderate solution that doesn't work, creates a system that rivals the tax code in complexity, and only serves to make everyone miserable except for the super-rich who can pay out-of-pocket for anything they want, and the new bureaucrats who can siphon off illicit money?[/QUOTE]

You can thank the Republicans for that. They oppose anything that could be called universal healthcare while leaving us with the unfortunate compromise.

It will be an imperfect solution but the system in place is imperfect and leaves many Americans with nothing but the option of using the emergency room after things have gotten so bad they can't do anything.

And thrust, it's much easier for hospitals to deny services than to somehow garnish wages after services were rendered. When you go to the hospital, you're required to give your insurance card (unless you come in by ambulance and you're unable). No insurance card? No service until you pay in full or some certain percentage that hospital administrators agree to.

In the current system, hospitals ask for insurance but can't deny service if you don't have it. Then, they send you a bill in the hopes that it gets paid. Then, you're saying that they would send the bill to the government if it isn't paid in a reasonable time so that it can be garnished from wages. How many more beaurecrats would that take? What about the unemployed, self-employed, illegal immigrant, and other people that get paid under the table? Those are the same people that aren't covered and would be most likely to stiff the hosptial in the long run
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's too difficult to regulate. If you do use the emergency room, AFTER deciding you don't want health coverage, and it's discovered that you turned down health care coverage, I'm not opposed to garnisheeing wages to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't be that hard to regulate. It would just mean hospitals etc. could refuse to serve people if they didn't haven insurance and their cards got rejected for pre-payment.

But it would be a pretty shitty society to turn away people who urgently needed medical care for such a reason.

So it really needs to be mandated, or there to be some wage garnishing programs for paying off medical debts for the working uninsured who aren't eligible for Medicaid.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That isn't a reason.

Libertarian dingbats use that phrase differently than a rational person would.

BTW Bob you never answered whether you or your family is covered (in part or otherwise) by government programs or subsidies.[/QUOTE]

A.) It is a reason - and it goes with my three things that I would require for any health care reform - no increasing taxes.
B.) So you're quite okay with the government telling you what products and services you have to buy?
C.) My wife and I are both covered through private insurance with no government assistance. Our dogs are not insured.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you are allowed that choice, should hospitals be allowed to deny you assistance unless you prepay for it?[/QUOTE]

Yes. They should be *allowed* to.

[quote name='depascal22']You can thank the Republicans for that. They oppose anything that could be called universal healthcare while leaving us with the unfortunate compromise. [/QUOTE]

Blame the Republicans. The Democrats control the House, The Senate and the Executive Branch... but blame the Republicans...

How long are the Democrats going to get by with blaming Bush and the Republicans before they have to accept some of the responsibility for their own positions?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

Blame the Republicans. The Democrats control the House, The Senate and the Executive Branch... but blame the Republicans...

How long are the Democrats going to get by with blaming Bush and the Republicans before they have to accept some of the responsibility for their own positions?[/QUOTE]

Good point.

I am resigned to the belief that blaming Bush will be a Democratic party favorite for the next 1.5 decades.
 
Don't get me wrong - Bush did a *lot* of damage.

But don't run on the platform that you're "not Bush", then keep doing everything Bush did and blame him for it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
B.) So you're quite okay with the government telling you what products and services you have to buy?
[/QUOTE]

Not in some very limited cases. Like requiring liability insurance if you're going to own and drive a car.

I see requiring some form of at least emergency medical insurance coverage as pretty much the same--keeping deadbeats from screwing the rest of us by leaching off the system when they need urgent care and have no insurance and lack the money to pay for it.
 
I don't mind requiring auto insurance if someone makes the decision to own and drive a vehicle.
But requiring health insurance isn't that.

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...[/QUOTE]

Most who are that poor are probably on or eligible for medicare.

The problem is those who can't afford coverage currently as their employer doesn't provide subsidized insurance, and the key is getting them coverage and making sure they get it rather than being cheap and not wanting to pay for it.

Maybe there would need to be subsidies for some at the lower income end of this--make too much for Medicare but not enough to easily pay the minimum premiums. That would depend on what the lowest premium available was.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Most who are that poor are probably on or eligible for medicare.

The problem is those who can't afford coverage currently as their employer doesn't provide subsidized insurance, and the key is getting them coverage and making sure they get it rather than being cheap and not wanting to pay for it.

Maybe there would need to be subsidies for some at the lower income end of this--make too much for Medicare but not enough to easily pay the minimum premiums. That would depend on what the lowest premium available was.[/QUOTE]

I would not be against such a plan (again, so long as it wasn't mandated, didn't raise taxes and didn't require deficit spending). One plan proposed that I really liked was set up to give citizens vouchers toward the purchase of health insurance (including the choice of a public option!). The amount of the voucher would be on a sliding scale based on income.
 
The individual mandate is one of the most crucial pieces to solve this mess, and if done right, will save our nation (read: taxpayers) billions.

I stopped caring weeks ago what the naysayers have to whine about because we're gonna get heath care passed and it really doesn't matter whether or not the ignorant conservative minority disapproves. Welcome to the rule of the progressive majority, bitches.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A.) It is a reason[/quote]

No it isn't.

Fighting WWII required taxes to be raised, that didn't make it reasonable to be against it.

- and it goes with my three things that I would require for any health care reform - no increasing taxes.
Click to expand...

B.) So you're quite okay with the government telling you what products and services you have to buy?
Click to expand...

I am for Universal Health Care, I am okay with the government telling insurance companies they can't kill people for their bottom line.

Blame the Republicans. The Democrats control the House, The Senate and the Executive Branch... but blame the Republicans...
Click to expand...

Republicans have the votes to filibuster any reform, there are ways around but presumably want to avoid the mother of all hissy fits.

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...
Click to expand...

People who make much more than you end up dead beats in this system Bob.
 
This isn't about Bush at all. I'm saying blame the Republican Party because they used Obama's willingness to compromise to bring any progress on this bill to a grinding halt. Democrats could've shoved a bill down their throats but they tried to bring in too many ideas that Republicans wanted. Now the bill is some sort of Frankenstein full of contradictions. All because Republicans have decided that bi-partisanship only works when you pretend we have to invade a country for "national security reasons."

I'm with Koggit. I'm done arguing about this. None of us are going to get anything done about it and conservatives will continue to whine that their rights and wallets are being raped. Well, I hope you stock up on lube.
 
[quote name='Msut77']


Republicans have the votes to filibuster any reform, there are ways around but presumably want to avoid the mother of all hissy fits.
/QUOTE]


I thought they only had 40 and a filibuster requires 41?


And still don't know the rational reasoning behind not just having universal health care. Single payer would be more efficient, cost less, and you wouldn't be dealing with corporations who make a profit by having an uneven health pool i.e more healthy people than sick (its how they make money and one of the reasons medicaid is so expensive, since they get the sick people the corporations wont take).
 
[quote name='Koggit']The individual mandate is one of the most crucial pieces to solve this mess, and if done right, will save our nation (read: taxpayers) billions.

I stopped caring weeks ago what the naysayers have to whine about because we're gonna get heath care passed and it really doesn't matter whether or not the ignorant conservative minority disapproves. Welcome to the rule of the progressive majority, bitches.[/QUOTE]

The way things are going, as depascal said, you aren't getting your ultra-progressive government takeover that you and your progressive overlords have so longed for, so I wouldn't start your circle jerk just yet.

All you can do is hope that they change everything back to the far-left agenda and ram it through, which they can do. It will cost them their majority status in the next election, and they know that (which is why they are trying to compromise) but they can still do it. Pray to Darwin they do.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't mind requiring auto insurance if someone makes the decision to own and drive a vehicle.
But requiring health insurance isn't that.

As for your dead beats... ummm... if they don't have money, they're going to get their insurance paid for by the government... which means they're *still* going to be leeching off the system...[/QUOTE]

Choice is the main reason this auto insurance comparison Obama made is a logically flawed. We can choose whether or not we want to own and drive a car. The alternative to choosing not to pay a health tax is death. Essentially they are proposing a tax on living at this point, they are charging a fee (tax) to anyone who chooses not to have health insurance. There's no way around it.

Every other tax we have is avoidable to a certain extent. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't take an income (difficult but not impossible). Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't but anything (shockingly not impossible either). The only way to avoid having to pay the health care penalty/fee/tax is to buy health care, either way you're paying something just to live.
 
[quote name='homeland']I thought they only had 40 and a filibuster requires 41?[/quote]

Theoretically the Democrats have 60 vote but there are a few foot draggers last I checked.

And still don't know the rational reasoning behind not just having universal health care.
Click to expand...

That is because there isn't one.
 
[quote name='Msut77']That is because there isn't one.[/QUOTE]

There is one. My health care is better than what the government can provide me until I get old or cancer or my wife loses her job with health benefits.

If I was shortsighted enough or thinking only of myself, I wouldn't choose a single payer until I needed it.

Those millions of uninsured aren't my problem.
 
Obviously people are too afraid of a single-payer system, but I hope that at least something can pass with a public option, and the mandate would help with costs.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Choice is the main reason this auto insurance comparison Obama made is a logically flawed. We can choose whether or not we want to own and drive a car. The alternative to choosing not to pay a health tax is death. Essentially they are proposing a tax on living at this point, they are charging a fee (tax) to anyone who chooses not to have health insurance. There's no way around it.

Every other tax we have is avoidable to a certain extent. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't take an income (difficult but not impossible). Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't but anything (shockingly not impossible either). The only way to avoid having to pay the health care penalty/fee/tax is to buy health care, either way you're paying something just to live.[/QUOTE]

That's kind of a silly way of looking at it. Unless you're some loner like Thrustbucket that would like to just live on a farm or something and never see anyone and die whenever you die (and hopefully by his 50's according to him)---you're going to spend more on health care over your life paying your own way vs. paying insurance premiums.

So you're point really only works if you plan to NEVER seek health care of any kind regardless of how sick or injured you are. Other wise, one really major injury or illness will cost you more in out of cost expenses than insurance premiums over your whole life time.

Of course assuming you'd pay your own way and not just refuse to get insurance and then leach off the system and declare bankruptcy etc. when shit happens.

So it's not really a tax on living. Just making sure that people have coverage which saves them money in the long run, and keeps them from leaching on the system by not having coverage and declaring bankruptcy when they need hospitalization or cancer treatments.

It's either that or you have a fucked up society where the hospital stops treating people who don't have insurance or money and lets them suffer and die.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's kind of a silly way of looking at it. Unless you're some loner like Thrustbucket that would like to just live on a farm or something and never see anyone and die whenever you die (and hopefully by his 50's according to him)---you're going to spend more on health care over your life paying your own way vs. paying insurance premiums.

So you're point really only works if you plan to NEVER seek health care of any kind regardless of how sick or injured you are. Other wise, one really major injury or illness will cost you more in out of cost expenses than insurance premiums over your whole life time.

Of course assuming you'd pay your own way and not just refuse to get insurance and then leach off the system and declare bankruptcy etc. when shit happens.

So it's not really a tax on living. Just making sure that people have coverage which saves them money in the long run, and keeps them from leaching on the system by not having coverage and declaring bankruptcy when they need hospitalization or cancer treatments.

It's either that or you have a fucked up society where the hospital stops treating people who don't have insurance or money and lets them suffer and die.[/QUOTE]


My whole point was based on choice though. The government penalty is taking that choice away. If I should choose to never, ever seek healthcare or health insurance in my life that should be my priority. The government should not penalize me for that.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']My whole point was based on choice though. The government penalty is taking that choice away. If I should choose to never, ever seek healthcare or health insurance in my life that should be my priority. The government should not penalize me for that.[/QUOTE]
So you admit your position is more idealistic than pragmatic.
 
Exactly. As it would require being able to deny treatment even in a life and death emergency. Or have some kind of wage garnishing to pay it back--which wouldn't work for some major injury that cost tens of thousands or more in treatment to save your life.

There just really needs to be some kind of minimal, mandated coverage to deal with life threatening injuries and diseases that absolutely require medical care to prevent death.
 
[quote name='gareman']So you admit your position is more idealistic than pragmatic.[/QUOTE]

There was no admission or even elusion to idealism in my post at all.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']There was no admission or even elusion to idealism in my post at all.[/QUOTE]


No but you seem to be accepting people's argument for some sort of mandate to lower costs, and your only stated problems with it has to do with the concept of freedom of choice...which isn't very practical because it will eliminate a lot of debt and help with efficiency and resources, but if its an idealistic line that you won't cross that's fine I have a few idealistic lines I don't cross either.
 
[quote name='gareman']No but you seem to be accepting people's argument for some sort of mandate to lower costs, and your only stated problems with it has to do with the concept of freedom of choice...which isn't very practical because it will eliminate a lot of debt and help with efficiency and resources, but if its an idealistic line that you won't cross that's fine I have a few idealistic lines I don't cross either.[/QUOTE]

I'm not primarily concerned with lowering costs for health care. My concern is the government adding another tax on us and trying to hide behind this fee/penalty idea. I come from a state that has gotten increasingly good at this (MN), sometimes even pushed by our republican governor.

I currently have health insurance through my work but I will be going back to school soon and more than likely moving to working part time then. One of the first things to go for expenses would be my health insurance because as it is right now I just don't use it. There's plenty of mid-20s people out there that just don't feel the need for health insurance. Its a risk definitely but its a risk I'd be willing to take without having the government force me to have coverage by penalizing me $3800 a year.

Two major points that that are being thrown out there during this debate are "choice" and "competition." If that's the case give me the choice to just not have health coverage.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
I currently have health insurance through my work but I will be going back to school soon and more than likely moving to working part time then. One of the first things to go for expenses would be my health insurance because as it is right now I just don't use it. There's plenty of mid-20s people out there that just don't feel the need for health insurance. Its a risk definitely but its a risk I'd be willing to take without having the government force me to have coverage by penalizing me $3800 a year.
[/QUOTE]

It's just an ignorant, and irresponsible view to have. You may not use it. But what happens if you get in a car accident? Or come down with cancer? And suddenly have tens of thousands of dollars of medical expenses that were necessary to prevent your death?

There needs to be some kind of mandated coverage--or make ER care in life threatening cases completely socialized--so people aren't driving up all our premiums by not having any coverage nor any personal savings and having to leach on the system when something bad happens to them.

You may be willing to take the risk. But you're fucking the rest of us when something happens and you have no coverage to pay for required care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top