• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why the individual mandate philosophically is right/ or wrong

Sunburn74

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
I hear a lot of people say to me the individual mandate to have health insurance, the central feature of Obamacare, is ludicrous because it forces people to buy something they don't need. However, don't we already do that in the form of taxes? I mean, my taxes disproportionally go towards stuff I don't really need immediately or will use (roads, public education, welfare, healthcare, social security, etc etc). I mean, if I live on amountain alone and take a single dirt road into town 3 times a year, my taxes paid today would be more or less the same and I'd be using even less of the services they are more or less providing for.

Should people be able to dictate directly where their taxes go? And if not, then why do people have a problem with the mandate? It basically is a tax that is not called a tax, but something more flowery.
 
If the fed gov can tell you that you must engage in private commerce and that you must buy health insurance because it is in the nation's best interest, what is preventing them from telling you that you must engage in private commerce and buy a new US built car? It is, after all, in the nation's best interest. Oh, and you now have to buy a new US built TV...and a new US built microwave. Cannot afford it or do not want it? Too bad.

Oh, and if you do not do as we demand, we will fine you equal to the cost of the product we decided you have to buy.
 
Sunburn74 said:
I hear a lot of people say to me the individual mandate to have health insurance, the central feature of Obamacare, is ludicrous because it forces people to buy something they don't need. However, don't we already do that in the form of taxes? I mean, my taxes disproportionally go towards stuff I don't really need immediately or will use (roads, public education, welfare, healthcare, social security, etc etc). I mean, if I live on amountain alone and take a single dirt road into town 3 times a year, my taxes paid today would be more or less the same and I'd be using even less of the services they are more or less providing for.

Should people be able to dictate directly where their taxes go? And if not, then why do people have a problem with the mandate? It basically is a tax that is not called a tax, but something more flowery.
Click to expand...

It may seem like a trivial issue. But the difference between taxing and forcing one to purchase a product from a private entity makes all the difference.

There is still a real possibility the SCOTUS will further bastardize the interstate commerce clause and say it is legal. But who knows.
 
cybrsage said:
If the fed gov can tell you that you must engage in private commerce and that you must buy health insurance because it is in the nation's best interest, what is preventing them from telling you that you must engage in private commerce and buy a new US built car? It is, after all, in the nation's best interest. Oh, and you now have to buy a new US built TV...and a new US built microwave. Cannot afford it or do not want it? Too bad.

Oh, and if you do not do as we demand, we will fine you equal to the cost of the product we decided you have to buy.
Click to expand...
Your analogies don't line up.
 
The main problem I have with it is that the health care market is already fucked up by federal involvement.

Now, ordinarily when the feds fuck up a sector, you can be free of that by not being involved. But in this case, you are required to be involved.
 
We're already being forced to pay for other people's healthcare, both through government programs like Medicare and through uninsured people who go to the ER and never pay a cent, which in turn leads to much higher bills for everyone else. I'm for the individual mandate since it should (theoretically at least) result in less freeloading.
 
ichy said:
We're already being forced to pay for other people's healthcare, both through government programs like Medicare and through uninsured people who go to the ER and never pay a cent, which in turn leads to much higher bills for everyone else. I'm for the individual mandate since it should (theoretically at least) result in less freeloading.
Click to expand...

The uninsured going to the ER and costing everyone more line is such a farse. If you have insurance, the bill costs no more. You pay your deductible and you are done. The hospital is the one who should be bitching here. The individual mandate does nothing to lower the costs for everyone else. All it does is appease the insurance companies by making more people pay them premiums which means less is lost to paying the higher bills due to the uninsured. But then again, the insurance pays a fraction of what you are billed so it still doesn't make a difference. Still the consumer sees no change in costs, especially if they already have a group plan through their employer where premium costs are distributed among all participants.
 
blankslate said:
Notice that Republicans didn't have the votes to do so back then...

Just enough votes and/or technical Congressional maneuvers to stop "HillaryCare"
Click to expand...

And that's not because there weren't enough D's signing on. There weren't enough R's either because some recognized this as a disaster in the making.
 
xBiffx said:
The uninsured going to the ER and costing everyone more line is such a farse. If you have insurance, the bill costs no more. You pay your deductible and you are done.
Click to expand...

Because insurance is free and the amount they pay doesn't matter? WTF kind of logic is this?
 
blankslate said:
Notice that Republicans didn't have the votes to do so back then...

Just enough votes and/or technical Congressional maneuvers to stop "HillaryCare"
Click to expand...

Which is good. So you are agreeing with me that it was wrong to do back then and it is still wrong to do now?
 
Where I have a problem with this "mandate" is low income people who can't afford insurance to begin with and make too much to qualify for Medicaid. These people, in one fell swoop, will become criminals or forces them to live without many essentials. It's foolish to think this is only a very few people but it's going to hurt a lot of people. Like almost everything the government does when it starts fucking around is it will hurt the very people it's supposedly trying to help. Let's ask another - who is the biggest winner with this mandate? It damn sure isn't any of the poor folk is it?
 
ichy said:
We're already being forced to pay for other people's healthcare, both through government programs like Medicare and through uninsured people who go to the ER and never pay a cent, which in turn leads to much higher bills for everyone else. I'm for the individual mandate since it should (theoretically at least) result in less freeloading.
Click to expand...

So, as a solution, you want to give the government the power to force you to buy a new DVD player ever 6 months?
 
cybrsage said:
If the fed gov can tell you that you must engage in private commerce and that you must buy health insurance because it is in the nation's best interest, what is preventing them from telling you that you must engage in private commerce and buy a new US built car? It is, after all, in the nation's best interest. Oh, and you now have to buy a new US built TV...and a new US built microwave. Cannot afford it or do not want it? Too bad.

Oh, and if you do not do as we demand, we will fine you equal to the cost of the product we decided you have to buy.
Click to expand...

Many such things are already done. We are mandated to buy car insurance from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines. We are mandated to buy clothes from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines for public indecency. We are mandated to buy food for children from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines for neglect. Being mandated to engage in private commerce is a very common practice.

The implementation of this plan may be crappy, but the mandate philosophically is pretty sound to me. Its essentially a tax with a flowery name.
 
Last edited:
ky54 said:
Where I have a problem with this "mandate" is low income people who can't afford insurance to begin with and make too much to qualify for Medicaid. These people, in one fell swoop, will become criminals or forces them to live without many essentials. It's foolish to think this is only a very few people but it's going to hurt a lot of people. Like almost everything the government does when it starts fucking around is it will hurt the very people it's supposedly trying to help. Let's ask another - who is the biggest winner with this mandate? It damn sure isn't any of the poor folk is it?
Click to expand...

How is that any different than their having to pay taxes? Exactly the same issues - give them a credit if needed. Actually, it is 'the poor' who benefit a lot from it largely.

Now, they don't benefit in that it doesn't do anything much to lower healthcare csts over our inefficient private insurance system - and that's needed.

They benefit from things like 'no pre-existing conditions can prevent insurance'. We need single-payer as a better solution for the poor, though.
 
cybrsage said:
Which is good. So you are agreeing with me that it was wrong to do back then and it is still wrong to do now?
Click to expand...

No it's not necessarily good and I'm saying that both Republicans and Democrats have proposed a very similar plan at different times.

Furthermore, there really is no reason to debat the hows and whys about it because that can lead to a very deep and wonky rabbit hole. Quite frankly it's not worth time other than to make the observation..
 
Last edited:
Sunburn74 said:
Many such things are already done. We are mandated to buy car insurance from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines. We are mandated to buy clothes from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines for public indecency. We are mandated to buy food for children from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines for neglect. Being mandated to engage in private commerce is a very common practice.
Click to expand...

By STATE government, yes. I have absolutely no problem with a state government setting up such a mandate. The US Constitution gives such power to the states, not the fed gov.

As a note, you are not mandated to buy food, clothing, etc. You can grow your own food and make your own clothing.
 
Sunburn74 said:
Many such things are already done. We are mandated to buy car insurance from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines. We are mandated to buy clothes from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines for public indecency. We are mandated to buy food for children from any company we want lest we face arrests and fines for neglect. Being mandated to engage in private commerce is a very common practice.

The implementation of this plan may be crappy, but the mandate philosophically is pretty sound to me. Its essentially a tax with a flowery name.
Click to expand...

The difference for Republicans is, you arne't required to have a car or children. Those are choices that come with obligations.

The better analogy is the one that this is the same principle as a tax, which covers all the issues.

The Republicans can scream in paranoia about a thousand things being required, but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top