Replies

You are not only articulate, you are also...wrong.

Massachusetts now forces people, via the new law, to obtain health insurance, whether they want to or not. That's not freedom, that's mandatory governmental dictate. You may counter with the car insurance argument, but I say that also is not freedom.

My argument is this: if the government is going to force us to buy a product, then they should force the businesses who supply that product to make it affordable to the least common denominator among us. Let's get real here, when was the last time your car insurance company (a multi-billion industry) offered you a break on your monthly premium? The government forces us to pay...then they should also force the insurance companies to make it cost 10 dollars a year! And if you don't like it, too damn bad, it's the LAW!!!

Out of Choice and damn near out of a free country in Arizona

Your argument would be right, and hold water, if society in general would tolerate stepping over the sick and the dead on the way to work. Are you going to say here that you believe that those who can't afford to be treated for their illnesses should be left on the side of the road to die?

Government has no responsibility to provide for affordable insurance coverage or affordable housing, or affordable food, or anything like that unless society (the voters) say so.

If you agree that the role of government in health care ends at the licensure of doctors and hospitals, that government should never pay for any health related services, and that those who either aren't willing to buy insurance or can't, should be left on the side of the road to die, then say so, and we can go on from there.

Same goes for auto insurance. If you are willing to let your daughter drive without insurance, and she gets in an accident by a driver without insurance (they say it is too expensive because government won't pass a law making it only ten dollars a year) and she is critically injured, will you agree that the hospitals and doctors shouldn't treat her because there is no money from the victim because she has no insurance. If you agree to that, you are an awful person, and not worthy of admittance into any society I would want to live in but you would be true to your argument. That argument is, I will do what I want, society be damned, and do it without government interference, and I will accept all of the consequences of my actions.

You said, in part: Massachusetts now forces people, via the new law, to obtain health insurance, whether they want to or not. That's not freedom, that's mandatory governmental dictate. You may counter with the car insurance argument, but I say that also is not freedom.
***

In the abstract, I agree with you. The problem here is that health care is not CONSIDERED a typical market product. If you come into my office for legal services, and cannot pay, I refuse to handle your matter. If you walk into a grocery store for a banana, and can't pay, you don't get the banana. Not so with health care. If your leg is broken and you show up at an ER, they get your insurance information, but if you have none, you are not turned away. You are treated, and, productive society, get to pay.

Either we make health care a market-driven system, and require payment for services or else deny those services, or we require individuals to maintain health care coverage, upon pain of state action. We do this with car liability insurance. There is still a market out there for that coverage. The same would likely hold true for health care insurance. If you don't want auto liability coverage, don't plan on driving.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the stomach for denying health care for those who refuse to cover themselves and their dependants. Health care has somehow become a "right" (how a benefit that requires others to provide it can be a right I will never know). As long as it is perceived as a right, it will never be denied. On the other hand, if people knew that they would get no care if they failed to maintain insurance, the very vast majority would do so. I am great believer in the ability of people to reach reasonable expectations.