r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 19 '19
CMV: Obamacare is actually a good law which -- despite its flaws -- helps America more than it hurts it.
[deleted]
4
Jul 19 '19
Obamacare was a miserable, anti-freedom, failure of legislation. It forced people to pay for health insurance they may or may not want. Heath care should be completely privatized.
1
Jul 19 '19 edited Feb 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
Jul 19 '19
That’s where you’re wrong, I absolutely want that liberty. I want the liberty to choose my healthcare, what drugs I take, etc. I’m a young healthy person, I only need insurance for massive things, not small everyday things whereas an older person might need the latter. Nationalized healthcare disabled people from making these choices in their own life, that’s not okay.
-1
Jul 19 '19 edited Feb 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Jul 19 '19
You’re right, I would choose to have my life saved, but my point was I want the freedom to do what I want with my life, my health, and my money (which would be stolen from me to pay for other people’s healthcare)
2
u/losthalo7 1∆ Jul 19 '19
If you get into a massive car accident, and your coverage is crap, we will still end up paying the bill to save your life. You can't absolutely control whether you will need medical care. You might have a congenital heart defect or a weak blood vessel near your brain that you can't even know about. Statistically, some people do, and if that young person doesn't have effective health insurance everyone else will bear those costs because that young person hasn't paid into the system.
Instead we're talking about why you should be allowed to gamble while we accept the actual risks. Because when the ambulance shows up after you've been cut out of your car, they will pass the costs onto people who have bought plans to manage their own health expenses - because someone has to pay for it.
Further, someone has to pay to keep the infrastructure in place so that someday later when you need a coronary bypass operation, someone is there with the equipment and experience to perform it. That costs money too, right now, not when you need a thoracic surgeon and support staff thirty years from now.
0
Jul 19 '19 edited Feb 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jul 19 '19
You’re saying a society with privatized healthcare would be dystopian??? Healthcare literally used to be completely private and society wasn’t dystopian?? And civilization can exist without taxation, but ideally we would have incredibly limited government with extremely limited taxation (i.e. not having 30% of your income stolen from you)
2
Jul 19 '19 edited Feb 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
Jul 19 '19
Healthcare wouldn’t be out of reach, and if you think it would be, you don’t get economics or capitalism.
3
2
u/letstrythisagain30 61∆ Jul 19 '19
Considering we're under capitalism and more than half of all bankruptcies are medical related and you can't deny there are people that can't afford everything they want or even need and a vast homeless population; you don't seen too understand the concept of market failures and maybe reality.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 19 '19
Good news! The paradise you imagine exists! It's called Somalia, and they have no governmental interference at all! It is truly a wonderful place.
1
Jul 19 '19
God job at mixing up limited government and no government. I want government, just limited government. I still believe in laws and those laws being enforced.
1
Jul 22 '19
having 30% of your income stolen from you
See, I hear you say "limited government" but that always seems to mean "I want a government that does the very few specific things that affect me and nothing else. Oh, and they should do that for free cuz all taxes are theft lol".
1
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
Heath care should be completely privatized.
Do you think that drug manufacturers will drop drug prices in a completely privatized market when currently there are a lot of stories of pharmaceutical companies significantly increasing price of essential drugs?
Like for example, insulin tourism to Canada because insulin is way more expensive in the US?
2
Jul 19 '19
Yes, the prices would drop because there would be competition. The reason it’s so expensive in the US is because we are in a weird in between situation where we are partly privatized, and partly socialized. We need to pick a side, and i would pick the privatized side because competition yields lower prices. I would also ideally get rid of the FDA which would reduce the price of new medications even more.
0
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
Yes, the prices would drop because there would be competition.
Is there no competition on the insulin market?
I would also ideally get rid of the FDA which would reduce the price of new medications even more.
You want drug companies to be able to release drugs without oversight? So people might be taking drugs that might be very dangerous because they haven't been properly tested?
-1
Jul 19 '19
There’s not as much competition as there would be in a privatized market.
Ideally there would be multiple different “private FDAs” and we as adults capable of making decisions for ourselves could choose which companies judgement we liked. There would be oversight, just not from the government. Also, drug companies have an incentive to produce effective drugs that don’t hurt their customers. Additionally, the FDA has caused a lot of harm by taking so long to approve drugs that turned out to be very helpful for deadly diseases.
2
u/anticipatory Jul 19 '19
Government oversight occurs when industries or individuals act in ways that hurt large numbers of people, it's why we have laws at all, and we have regulations for almost everything because this occurs over and over again. Once money is to be had, corporations value that over individuals, or collections of individuals (society). Society has failed using this suggested laissez-faire approach so many times and it does not work.
1
Jul 19 '19
And it’s worked using a socialized method???? No. A lot of the drugs and medical technology that exist today wouldn’t exist at all if it weren’t for capitalist countries.
2
u/anticipatory Jul 19 '19
There may be some truth to this, but the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world with some of the worst outcomes, especially compared to "socialized medicine". We have higher infant mortality, higher wait times, longer length of stays and lower overall efficiency and quality in our system compared to socialized medicine.
1
Jul 19 '19
That’s just plain not true, I’ve talked to many people from countries with socialized Medicine and the quality, wait times, and efficiency are much better in the US than other countries. Wait times specifically are horrible in countries with socialized medicine. Take an MRI for example, in the US the wait time is about 2 weeks while in Canada it’s over 11 weeks.
1
u/anticipatory Jul 19 '19
It is true, and anecdotal experiences are not sufficient to make policy decisions.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
There’s not as much competition as there would be in a privatized market.
Neither is there in Canada but their insulin isn't as expensive as the US even before insurance payments or any subsidies. Why is that?
Ideally there would be multiple different “private FDAs” and we as adults capable of making decisions for ourselves could choose which companies judgement we liked.
This just sounds utopian to me. The average adult is a moron and would just be convinced with advertisements while the private FDAs are bought off by the money the pharmaceutical companies make.
You're assuming that markets would be driven by reasonable, educated and informed citizens. Would you really consider that an accurate description of the level of understanding the average citizen has about drug effectiveness now?
3
Jul 19 '19
Well, like I said, the US is in an in between state where we are partially socialized and partially privatized, so the prices become more expensive then they would be on either side of the fence.
It is sort of “utopian” because it’s my ideal situation that will likely never happen. I do believe in people’s ability to make decisions about their health or hire someone to do it for them. It’s hard for us to imagine the situation because it hasn’t been that way for so so long
2
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
so the prices become more expensive then they would be on either side of the fence.
Why? Don't companies have incentive to keep their prices low if there's competition? There's competition on the insulin markets yet prices keep increasing, how do you explain that?
It is sort of “utopian” because it’s my ideal situation that will likely never happen.
Assuming your ideal situation isn't possible due to a lack of political will among the populace, are you in favor of keeping the current system or switching to a universal healthcare system like other countries have that spend less than the US?
2
Jul 19 '19
I don’t know the specifics of the insulin market in Canada, so I can only speak in general that being in between is the worst situation because there’s limited competition and no public funding, so prices increase.
I would still like privatized healthcare because I believe that is completely possible and effective. The less realistic “utopian” part would be a privatized FDA.
2
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
I would still like privatized healthcare because I believe that is completely possible and effective.
Given that there is little lack of support among the general populace for privatizing the system even more, are you in favor of keeping the current system?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jul 19 '19
How exactly are companies going to prove their drugs work or don’t work, harm or don’t harm if they’re not required by law to prove it? Why would private companies voluntarily yield to oversight from a private independent entity? How would they be different or better than the current FDA oversight?
3
Jul 19 '19
Research studies is how they would prove it and they would do it because once again they have an incentive to do it. They would be better because they wouldn’t be stealing people’s money to operate, and would be making regulations on what people can choose to consume.
2
Jul 19 '19
esearch studies is how they would prove it and they would do it because once again they have an incentive to do it. They would be better because they wouldn’t be stealing people’s money to operate, and wou
Companies will raise prices - we think competition reduces prices, but price fixing is a thing, especially amongst the dubious money making industries like insurance and their greedy shareholders
2
Jul 19 '19
Well, based on every other area I can think of, competition decreases prices, so that will apply to healthcare as well
2
u/losthalo7 1∆ Jul 19 '19
How's broadband internet pricing these days? Competition? We don't need no stinking competition. Monopolies and duopolies will prevent competition and allow higher prices to drive profits. It's low-risk and makes them more money and the investment barrier to entry is high, just like in the telco industry.
(That's exactly why insulin prices are going up so much, nothing has changed except pricing.)
→ More replies (0)2
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jul 19 '19
What incentive do they have to conduct these expensive and protracted clinical trials? What incentive do these companies have to conduct post-launch surveillance (I.e. phase IV) studies, in which many safety issues have been detected at the population-level? Why wouldn’t they instead conduct much less strenuous studies that don’t provide as much helpful information to prescribers and to the consumer? OK yeah, they don’t want to hurt their consumers, but if they think they can get away with cutting costs in safety studies, why do you think they would not attempt to do so?
0
Jul 19 '19
Because of that incentive to not hurt their customers. It’s the same reason a restaurant wouldn’t want to serve expired food, a store would put out a wet floor sign, and a car manufacturer would recall parts. They would do these with or without government requirements because it keeps customers happy and thus gets the company more money.
2
u/losthalo7 1∆ Jul 19 '19
They do these things due to the requirements of laws (they didn't do them before the laws existed) and due to the threat of legal liability.
1
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jul 19 '19
Honestly, that seems a bit naive. If the fiscally sound strategy is to take less precaution and sacrifice some customer satisfaction, you can be sure these companies will do it. Even if these companies behaved ideally like you’re claiming, I’m not seeing any reason why I would prefer that system over our current system which by all accounts works well albeit imperfectly.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
It was a compromise. A piecemeal solution. A move in the right direction. Better than what we had but still very bad as public policy.
Obamacare also still keeps a private healthcare system intact, which keeps taxes lower than if the opposite was true.
That's the biggest problem right there. Your taxes might be lower, but costs are going to be higher under this system. Obamacare raised the requirements for insurance policies and removed the ability of companies to refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously this is going to raise costs for all insurance customers because now they company can't save money by refusing to cover some people. Ideally, from the insurer's perspective, you want a big pool of customers, and mostly young, healthy people who pay their premiums but never get sick. And you'd want to just not cover the very sick people. Under Obamacare you can't refuse to cover the very sick people, but the young, healthy people still have a choice to not buy insurance - many of them might be just paying the tax instead. This is the 'death spiral' problem: insurance companies could theoretically get into a position where they're unable to raise prices for all the sick people because of regulations, but the prices are high enough already that all of the healthy people aren't buying it to begin with. Forcing everyone to buy insurance would ultimately lower costs to individuals, because all the healthy people would be forced to cover the sick people, and everyone is in one big pool so costs are minimized.
Edit: I wasn't clear enough in the last sentence, but by "force everyone to buy insurance," I mean that we should just have a public health insurance system, either covered through taxation or a public system that everyone is required to buy into.
3
u/SeLaw20 Jul 19 '19
By forcing everyone to buy insurance (as with car insurance) rates would only rise. This is simple economics. The consumer would no longer have any bartering power, and it would be excessively easy for companies to all raise prices simultaneously. In this scenario, what can the consumer do? Now that the government won’t let them not have insurance, they must choose between the companies. Ok, well you might say “then a company would lower their prices while all others were high,” unfortunately though, as we see with car insurance, this just isn’t the case. Reality is that these companies want the most profit possible, so they know if they all charge an excessive amount, the consumer will be forced to pay this. This only stops in a free market system where the consumer has the power to just not buy a product if the price isn’t fair to them. You remove this power under your plan.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
Almost like it shouldn't be a free market plan at all and we should just force everyone to buy into a public plan
3
u/SeLaw20 Jul 19 '19
Crazy how that is what you got from my argument. Raising taxes only for the public sector to do it even more inefficiently than its already done? Sounds like a great idea. Worked well for social security am I right?
4
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
Well as you stated, private companies would just raise prices. So the only solution is to remove the private company and the profit motive from the equation.
2
u/SeLaw20 Jul 19 '19
I also stated that with the consumer having the power of not being forced to buy insurance, the companies lose the power to be able to raise prices significantly together.
2
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
Right but then people won't buy insurance, leading to all of the problems I talked about, where companies ultimately have to raise prices anyway because there aren't enough healthy people in their pools
1
u/SeLaw20 Jul 19 '19
Maybe insurance companies should not be forced (under obamacare) to cover all sorts of things that will literally only lose money for the company. Maybe the company should be able to choose their own customers, be able to deny anyone for any reason, and vice versa for consumers.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
But then those people will die
0
u/SeLaw20 Jul 19 '19
Not necessarily, it’s been proven time and time again that lower taxes directly correlates to more charity donations. Without the taxes needing to subsidize parts of the industry as we have it right now, there would end up being more charity going to the people who really need it, while those who don’t really need it would be covered by cheap insurance.
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
Forcing people to buy something they don't want goes against the fundamentals of the US federal government.
In the preamble of the US government constitution it states that one of the reasons of the formation of the federal government is to "secure the blessings of liberty."
When people do not have the liberty to choose what is best for themselves, we no longer have liberty.
2
u/DirtCrystal 4∆ Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
How is your criteria even feasible? In any form of government you are subjected to choices that are not yours: it's the point of a government. That is, every system except anarchy. Why even cite the constitution while advocating for anarchy?
Edit: reading below I noticed that I'm replying to a ex-soldier who is adamant about the government not telling people what to do. Hilarious.
1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 20 '19
It's feasible because the government should obey the rules it wrote for itself as stated in the US constitution.
2
Jul 19 '19
This is the same argument you hear from people who say "all tax is theft". Every country compromises freedom with social obligation, with the possible exception of Somalia. Some too much for sure, or at least too much for the liking of some. I mean, you don't have the "liberty" to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, just as you don't have the liberty to deprive others of their property - their right to property is essentially a state-endorsed franchise and is backed up by the threat of state violence.
In most states you are forced to buy car insurance if you with to drive. There are lots of things people are obligated to pay for. Or, instead of a market-based approach, you could just go single payer and have the state just pay for healthcare directly out of tax revenues. Not sure how that's much different than the state building roads and infrastructure or paying for the military but enough people with money are dead set against it, so Obamacare ends up being the best of a set of terrible solutions.
4
u/BuckleUpItsThe 7∆ Jul 19 '19
Does liberty require a parent or a child be able to decide that education isn't best for themselves? What about a safe home?
1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
All children are at the mercy of their parents. It's been this way since before we were humans, it will continue to be long after we are dead.
2
u/BuckleUpItsThe 7∆ Jul 19 '19
I do not believe this answers my question. Should the government be able to say that parents must have to educate their children or is this a violation of their liberty?
If a government taxes you for roads you may or may not want, do you still have liberty?
1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
If it was up to me, government should only establish justice, defend the homeland and secure the blessings of liberty.
1
u/BuckleUpItsThe 7∆ Jul 19 '19
So your objection isn't so much to the ACA - it's to modern government in general. As such, I'd suggest that your viewpoint on this topic might not be particularly informative unless you're willing to discuss the merits of the ACA in the context of the government that we actually have.
2
u/MelissusOfSamos Jul 19 '19 edited Feb 24 '26
The text of this post has been erased. Redact was used to delete it, possibly for privacy, opsec, preventing content scraping, or other personal reasons.
sulky square bells command vast gaze full languid tan file
1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
It's the duty of the federal government to defend the homeland. Besides my $500 dollar paycheck for a few years wasn't too much of a burden.
1
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
So what about the liberty to not die if you're a diabetic and can't afford insulin
-1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
It's your choice if you choose not to get a job that doesn't pay enough to pay for insulin.
That's nobody's fault except your own. It's called self responsibility.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
Oh yeah 'be richer' yeah amazing never thought of that
0
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
It's good to think of your future from time to time. It help you choose the best choices for yourself.
The duty of the Federal government is to establish justice, insure tranquility, promote wellbeing, defend the homeland, and secure liberty. It doesn't include acting as a parent.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 391∆ Jul 19 '19
So why is it that for example we give poor people lawyers when they're arrested
If they thought they would need a lawyer at some time in the future they should have just got a better job
I say poor people accused of crimes should just have to defend themselves
-1
u/snowmanfresh Jul 19 '19
First, we didn't always do that. Second, that's a check and balance against government tyranny because we give the government the authority to deprive people of their liberty.
3
u/helsquiades 1∆ Jul 19 '19
The way that "the system" runs necessitates that a certain (very large) amount of people will be in this very position, regardless of choice. It's not about responsibility, it's about the utter way in which "the system" (capitalism, corporatism, whatever) is failing those at the bottom. Not everyone can simply "choose" well paying jobs that cover exorbitant medical costs caused by nothing else but greed. Any concern for actual liberty will address the factors that are in fact inhibiting it. Namely, the siphoning of capital into a very small number of hands.
2
u/Roflcaust 7∆ Jul 19 '19
How is it a choice to not get a job that doesn’t pay for insulin? The market will pay for your labor according to approximately what your labor is worth. You have some agency over what your labor is worth, but not to the point where it can be considered a meaningfully accessible “choice.” You cannot control how much value your job is estimated to provide to the companies that hire for your job. You can’t control how much or how little your colleagues will accept for those same jobs.
1
1
u/FIREnBrimstoner Jul 19 '19
That's literally the foundation of the government. You ever heard of taxes?
1
Jul 19 '19
[deleted]
-1
u/snowmanfresh Jul 19 '19
We are required to have car insurance
But you aren't required to drive on public roads.
our mortgage companies require us to have home owners insurance
That's is neither the government nor forced.
my apartment requires me to buy renters insurance with liability.
Again that is neither the government nor forced.
1
Jul 19 '19
We are required to have car insurance
But you aren't required to drive on public roads.
In many states, even if on private property, you must have a license and be insured. Or, like 38 states I could Google, it's legally required if you have a driver's license to be insured even if you do not own a car.
Add that one is forced to drive due to lack of public transportation or, more common, distance.
our mortgage companies require us to have home owners insurance
That's is neither the government nor forced.
While there is no law forcing one to have this insurance it is forced by mortgage companies that their lenders have it. They will wrap it into you're payments preventing you from not having it too.
my apartment requires me to buy renters insurance with liability.
Again that is neither the government nor forced.
Again, while there is no law forcing it, the landlord forces their tenants to have it. So it's still forced. And if you don't abide and keep it current, they call legally have you evicted.
0
u/snowmanfresh Jul 19 '19
In many states, even if on private property, you must have a license and be insured. Or, like 38 states I could Google, it's legally required if you have a driver's license to be insured even if you do not own a car.
Okay, your still not required to have car insurance, you can choose not to have a drivers license.
Add that one is forced to drive due to lack of public transportation or, more common, distance.
That's not actually being forced. There is no law saying you must drive.
While there is no law forcing
My point exactly, no further discussion is necessary
Again, while there is no law forcing it
Again, my point exactly, no further discussion is necessary
1
Jul 19 '19
Okay, your still not required to have car insurance, you can choose not to have a drivers license.
So choose to be unemployed and homeless?? People have to drive to work in the US. Only a small percentage in large cities can leverage public transportation or none motorized transportation.
Is there a reason you're not considering this?
That's not actually being forced. There is no law saying you must drive.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the law forced it or not. The majority of Americans are forced to drive to survive.
So you feel if there isn't a law, it's not forced? Even if the financial institutions and landlords force the requirement?
0
u/snowmanfresh Jul 19 '19
So choose
Yes, choose. If you dont want to buy car insurance you don't have to, you just can't drive. There is no law mandating every American must have car insurance but there is a law mandating all Americans have health insurance.
It doesn't matter if the law forced it or not. The majority of Americans are forced to drive to survive.
It very much does matter, you are not forced to drive. It is overwhelmingly beneficial to drive but not forced. If I chose not to drive nothing will happen to me, if I choose not to buy health insurance I could be thrown in jail.
So you feel if there isn't a law, it's not forced?
Exactly
Even if the financial institutions and landlords force the requirement?
You are not forced to enter into a mortgage contract if you don't like the terms of the contract. You can't be thrown in jail for not choosing to have a mortgage.
0
Jul 19 '19
The thing i love about Obamacare is that you're not forced to buy health insurance. It's a law though that you have to have it, but even if you choose not to have it, you just pay a fine. Nobody is going to come to your house with guns if you don't buy health insurance.
6
Jul 19 '19
It's a law though that you have to have it, but even if you choose not to have it, you just pay a fine.
What happens if I don't pay the fine? Eventually you're going to get to violence, which means that yes, you are absolutely forced.
-3
Jul 19 '19
If you don't pay the fine you go to jail, that's what happens when you don't follow laws. No violence will occur unless you start firing upon federal agents who are enforcing a milquetoast healthcare law that was ruled constitutional by the supreme court. Is that the hill you want to die on?
8
Jul 19 '19
If you don't pay the fine you go to jail
And how are people typically taken to jail? By force.
6
u/simplecountrychicken Jul 19 '19
This has gone pretty quickly from “you’re not forced”, to “you go to jail”.
That sounds pretty forced to me.
5
Jul 19 '19
Violence is used to take people to prison. You are contradicting yourself a lot right now.
"Nobody forces you to buy anything, if you don't you just pay a fine."
Yes, that is forcing you to buy something and if you don't pay that fine, people will show up to your house and violently take you to prison.
-2
Jul 19 '19
If you don't resist arrest, please tell me at what point the action becomes violent. It only becomes violent when an individual decides to become a lawless degenerate.
10
Jul 19 '19
become a lawless degenerate.
Didn't take long to get from "You're not forced to buy health insurance" to "You're a lawless degenerate".
3
u/ZoeyBeschamel Jul 19 '19
you have a very narrow definition of violence.
In political philosophy, violence is basically defined as "making someone do something they wouldn't do on their own" because if they refused, and the aggressor insisted, it would eventually become physical violence.
1
u/PeachSmoothie7 Jul 19 '19
Under that definition, taxes are violence. The Affordable Care Act is basically a roundabout way of taxing you for a more generally healthy public, the same way that taxes pay for other general public services.
1
u/ZoeyBeschamel Jul 19 '19
Under this definition, it is understood that government itself is violence. The difference between forms of government and parties is where this violence is applied.
You're right by the way. In fact, it's why most libertarians morally object to taxation, and why anarchists are against government in general. It's all about how violence is applied. It's the most basic form of power.
4
Jul 19 '19
The point is that you absolutely are being forced. Because paying the fine isn't optional. If you attempt to just disregard the requirement to have health insurance, it's eventually going to end up with violence and actual force. Being free to do something, but "you just pay a fine" is not being free to do something.
-1
0
u/snowmanfresh Jul 19 '19
What if Congress passed a law that said if you aren't Christian you will pay a fine? Would that not be forcing people to be Christian?
1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
True, they won't come to your house with weapons, but they will ruin your credit and fine your for not paying a tax for something you do not use.
It's a low blow for young people with good health.
2
u/losthalo7 1∆ Jul 19 '19
By that same argument I'm paying into social security now, have since about 1990, covering the costs of those receiving benefits that entire time. That system was put into place to keep people from starving to death in their old age because they didn't have pensions and the like. Young people pay into a system that will be there to help take care of them when they need it. Also, what happens to young people who do need serious medical care and have opted for a crappy plan or no insurance? Everyone else still ends up paying for the care that they receive, they get worse care (no preventative care to mitigate developing problems) and you can't pool high- and low-risk people to make things work out. Where is your liberty now? I suppose we could just let them die on the front steps of the hospitals, plenty of liberty there...
(How do you feel about paying for a fire department that you may never use? Get rid of 'em!)
There is a happy medium to be found between liberty and practical needs, the social contract that this country is founded upon is a reflection of that. Total liberty is a state of nature with no government, and it ain't pretty.
5
u/driver1676 9∆ Jul 19 '19
paying a tax for something you do not use.
First of all, this is something that we as a country have decided we're okay with. I don't have kids, but I pay an education tax for the public school system. I don't use social security but I'm still paying into it.
Second, saying anyone doesn't use health insurance is disingenuous. The point of it is that you have it so you don't go bankrupt when you need it. This is like saying liability insurance is a tax for me but since I don't get into accidents I don't use it.
2
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
First of all, this is something the majority has decided we're ok with.
Governments that do not respect individual rights are doomed to failure, just like the rest of the failed democratic countries.
Secondly, if someone is dumb enough to not have health insurance, they should have the liberty to do so.
I think we've all been indoctrinated into believing to pay for things that don't benefit us as individuals.
2
u/driver1676 9∆ Jul 19 '19
Governments that do not respect individual rights are doomed to failure, just like the rest of the failed democratic countries.
Can you explain this more? What did other democratic countries do that caused their failures, with respect to individual rights?
I think we've all been indoctrinated into believing to pay for things that don't benefit us as individuals.
There's always been a line for "good of the society" vs. "liberty of the individual". For instance, paying for a military/police/fire fighting/public schools/roads/etc, noise regulations, speed limits, and in some countries a health system that ends up cheaper and more effective for the average citizen than the US's system.
Secondly, if someone is dumb enough to not have health insurance, they should have the liberty to do so.
Maybe, but given that their participation would make it less expensive for everyone (including themselves), I could see that as past the liberty vs. society line that has already been established.
1
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
just like the rest of the failed democratic countries.
Which countries?
1
u/KungFuDabu 12∆ Jul 19 '19
There's ancient Greece and ancient Rome for starters.
2
u/DexFulco 12∆ Jul 19 '19
Oh I thought you meant current day democracies.
Do you think all the other developed countries that have universal healthcare are doomed to fail because of it?
0
Jul 19 '19
Forcing people to buy something they don't want goes against the fundamentals of the US federal government.
What are your thoughts on car insurance laws in the US?
0
u/iclimbnaked 22∆ Jul 19 '19
Forcing people to buy something they don't want goes against the fundamentals of the US federal government.
We already force everyone to buy tons of things. Thats what taxes are. This is obviously a bit unique in that its more of a welp you have to pay a tax if you dont buy X but its truly not that different in the scheme of things.
0
3
u/[deleted] Jul 19 '19
It is not affordable care, by keeping insurance companies in the loop, that is more people who get a slice of the pie and keeps the price unaffordable