I agree with most of your statement of general principles. Especially what you said about that abomination, the commerce clause.
Mandates are anti-liberty. However, as with most things, it is not always that simple.
Your position on abortion — and mine — for example, is to limit the “liberty” of the woman seeking the abortion, and to have the government insert itself into the matter. On abortion, the liberals suddenly become libertarian. I would also limit the “liberty” of homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, if I could be the czar. If it was good enough for Byron White, it’s good enough for me.
Would you do away with laws requiring people to buy car insurance? That’s a mandate, too, and somewhat analogous to the mandate to purchase health insurance.
You are also right that government is the source of the problem. The government won’t allow hospitals to turn away non-paying patients. Do you think you could get even a majority of conservatives to agree that hospitals should be able to turn away people? I really don’t.
I actually think some kind of minimal “charity” care, maybe funded by states, might be a good idea. It would take care of emergencies, but would not be good enough that people would want to rely on it. If they wanted all the good care available, they would have to find some way to insure themselves.
I don’t think one man should have a “right” to the labor of another — even doctors.
But, I still think the attempt by Romney and Heritage to find a way to end the “free riding” does not make them “socialists.”
Thanks for the discussion. On to other things now.
Who gave Romney the right to take away voters' rights to vote.
Romney and his Legion of RomneyBOTs are evil incarnate Marxists.
Thanks for the discussion. On to other things now.
- - - - - - -
Translation: “I am on to other things because I know I am not going to win the argument. Buh-bye”
Abortion is not a constitutional right.
Homosexual marriage is not a constitutional right.
Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is not a constitutional right, you must be licensed by the state.
Healthcare is not a constitutional right.
Unconstitutional mandates against the people are not constitutional powers of government.
Forcing unconstitutional mandates on an unwilling people at the point of the government gun, the tax collector (whether it be called tax, fee, penalty or premium) or the threat of jail cell is unconstitutional, anti-Liberty, anti-American, socialist/fascist intrusion and are violations of our constitutional rights. And those pushing it or voting for it are indeed socialists. And traitors as far as I’m concerned.
LOL. Yes, I think both the Heritage Foundation and Romney would laugh at the idea of being socialists. Also, I agree with you that ending the "free rides" of so many at the taxpayer's expense was a very conservative concept and based on encouraging individual responsibililty. Asking people to be responsibile and plan ahead rather than waiting for tragedy to strike and expecting the taxpayers to pick up your tab is a conservative idea.
I have to agree with that other poster that your posts are the most reasonable and sensible on the thread. You present a good argument without being hysterical or abusive. Good job.
Your position on abortion — and mine — for example, is to limit the “liberty” of the woman seeking the abortion, and to have the government insert itself into the matter. On abortion, the liberals suddenly become libertarian. I would also limit the “liberty” of homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, if I could be the czar. If it was good enough for Byron White, it’s good enough for me.
****
I really don’t understand your point of view LL about rights if one wasn’t a victim of raped/incest where the will of the women was violate there is no excuse to concider an abotiton.
Even than the right thing to do would be to carry the baby to full term and let the child live to be adopted.
In other situations are those who got pregnant they had several choices before getting into that position.
They have no say here why should the unborn pay the consequences for another thoughtless act?
However, as with most things, it is not always that simple.
reminds me of kerry's nuance line
Your position on abortion — and mine — for example, is to limit the “liberty” of the woman seeking the abortion, and to have the government insert itself into the matter.
i think you are missing the reason why pro life people are pro life - they see it as murder - and they certainly have no problem with government taking the liberty of a murderer
Would you do away with laws requiring people to buy car insurance? That’s a mandate, too, and somewhat analogous to the mandate to purchase health insurance.
not really - as jim pointed out, driving on public roads is not a right - its a privilege - the insurance that is mandatory covers damages to other drivers - not damages you cause to yourself or your vehicle
Do you think you could get even a majority of conservatives to agree that hospitals should be able to turn away people? I really don’t.
your earlier list of options for covering those without healthcare missed one - garnishment
You wrote: “Would you do away with laws requiring people to buy car insurance? That’s a mandate, too, and somewhat analogous to the mandate to purchase health insurance.”
Once again, that’s a poor analogy. ‘Car’ insurance is in fact catastrophic health insurance to benefit victims of the holder of the policy; it places financial responsibility on the one who is the actual and proximate cause of injury.
‘Health’ insurance as most people experience it is much more like membership in the Auto Club; all kinds of basic services, within limits. Since ‘expanding access’ is often taken not only to mean access to more people, but access to more services to those already covered, ‘expanding access’ in practice would be like the Auto Club both providing the basic roadside services to everybody and providing their tires and gas, too. Triple-A membership would be loved (until people started complaining about quality), but unprofitable.
Note that Auto Club membership is mostly about convenience, not personal responsibility: a stranded motorist could walk to a pay phone and call service numbers on his or her own, instead of calling Triple-A. Auto Club membership just makes this easier, cheaper, and more reliable.
We the people as yet do not pay the “free riding” of stranded motorists without Auto Club membership, not do we (yet) complain of the unfair buying advantages of those who are members of warehouse stores. Why should health care be different?
As to your “some kind of minimal ‘charity’ care, maybe funded by states,” this is the very system to which you object when you write, “government is the source of the problem. The government won’t allow hospitals to turn away non-paying patients.” Besides, isn’t the complaint that people are under-served rather than un-served?
BTW, the last time I went to a hospital (without health insurance) I had to pay up front: no service without payment. Perhaps if I hadn’t spoken English it might have been different, but that’s a subject for another thread.