Brandi points out a very significant problem in our health care. Medicaid exists for those with little in the way of assets or income but a lot of people are in the gap of being too well off for Medicaid but unable to afford health care. Were it up to me I would have simply expanded Medicaid to cover more of the working poor and allow Americans over 50 to buy into Medicare since so many older working Americans can not find employment that provides health care and are too difficult and expensive to insure otherwise.
This was proposed during the health care debate and it would have been a great way to cover millions more Americans but Republicans and Conservadems refused to consider any health care plan that would reduce insurance company profits.
I'd love to cut the insurance companies out of the picture. Their goal is profits and the way to this end is to charge as much as possible and pay out the least. Both of these goals are counter to improving health care. Their are in the business of refusing health care rather than provide it.
I think you gusy should sincerely consider whether there could be some sort of publicly financed health care. One where no private companies are involved. Tax financed hospitals where everyone can go.
Just like public schools. Everyone can go there at no cost. Everyone pays for it as a part of their taxes whether they have children or not. And if people are rich and want a better school they send their kids to private schools. Yet nobody complains why they pay for other peoples kids education. Because the fact that education is available to everyone free it is good for society in general. Also if you are rich and send your kids to private schools, also if you have no kids.
I think the same applies to health care. A rich employer - even if he would never go to a public hospital himself - would have advantages from the fact that his employees can go to public doctors and get free treatment.
I believe this ruling is better listed as an example of corporate fascism rather than socialism. The bill in and of itself may have collectivist bindings... but the mandate that was being adjudicated for having violated the interstate commerce clause is an example of corporations... [in this case major insurance companies and big pharma]... directing the government to act in their interests at the expense of the citizenry and in violation of federal authority. This is something much worse than socialism... this is the plutocracy unveiling its overton window with little regard to the hellish landscape it reveals.
@Luke... Age appropriate sense that is. No offense intended for ignorance... but if this issue really matters to you... perhaps you should gain a broader perspective on what you're actually arguing. Health care is good. Being forced to pay the insurance company to provide a policy before receiving healthcare is akin to an ambulance requiring taxi fare before they begin resuscitative measures. Why is the insurance mandate necessary if health care is the goal? Does this not seem superfluous to you at all? That is the point being argued... why the middlemen are needed here.
This was asked earlier, my response is registered here: http://www.funadvice.com/q/thoughts_government_makeing_people_health_insurance_face_penalties
Ruling: ObamaCare Bottom line: Insurance premium IS a TAX...on ALL..What has he said previous >>>> http://funadvice.com/r/163kea2970j (video)
I think that everyone deserves to have health care. PPL on welfare already have it, so the working poor should have it also.
I don't think the government has the right to force people to buy something, no matter how helpful it may be.
Hahah your welcome(: your the only one who made sense x)
I think it's constitutional it's helping America
Agreed, ....what Constitution !?
Thanks for the point, Luke :)
A form of socialism.