[SeekAndFind]

I love the idea of HSA’s but much of congress and the bureaucrats in the federal government do not because it increases choices for the employed

The Democrats main concern is those who are unemployed or underemployed. Hence, if you talk about HSA's, you will hear them respond --- how can those who got laid off who do not have jobs afford to have HSA's, when they don't have the money to put them into that account in the first place ? That would be like asking them to contribute to their 401K when they have no income to contribute.

Just keep this argument in mind when HSA's are brought up because that's what you're going to be hearing.

[swain_forkbeard]

Of course. The argument is that healthcare is a right and ought not be tied to employment status. Which means those who work must pay for those who don’t. And HSAs promote INDIVIDUAL responsibility, not COLLECTIVE responsibility.

But if healthcare is a right - or at least a collective moral responsibility, this must be based on the assumption that healthcare promotes good health. But in general, good food and adequate clothing and shelter are all more fundamental to good health than the services of specialists. So all those things must also be rights and therefore COLLECTIVE responsibilities.

But if food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare are all de-linked from work, then what remains as the primary incentive to work? And without work, there is no productivity, and everybody’s quality of life declines.

So those who argue that healthcare is a right are agruing for a lower quality of life for everyone.