Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're all forced to pay for things we may never use because society requires them to function. I don't ride the bus but I pay for the system's maintenance. I don't have children, yet I pay for schools. Even the OP admits the governmental requirement to pay for car and mortgage insurance. Health care should no longer be viewed as a for-profit private enterprise, it should be viewed as a right. Everyone is entitled to health care even if they don't have the individual means to pay for it.
Apart from some mandate to have health insurance, I would instead LOVE to pay a few thousand more in income taxes each year provided I have the guarantee that if I have an accident or fall ill to some serious illness, I can go anywhere in my country and receive the medical attention I need at a minimal cost, something that removing the profit would help to achieve. More than 70% of this country feels the same way. It's time to implement it.
It's fine for people to "choose" not to spend their money health insurance - but I should not be required to pay for their care if they end up in the emergency room with a stroke.
Where's my Constitutionally right not to be indirectly hit with those costs?
Why do these threads always miss the whole point??? You CAN be forced to buy HI. Just not by the FEDERAL govt. Since the constitution neither grants that particular power, nor prohibits it, individual states are free to exercise it as they see fit...
I am fine with eliminating the mandate for health insurance, as long as all of you who don't want it don't expect health care, if you don't have the cash to pay for it.
As a member of the Republican and Tea parties, I am outraged that it was even thought for us to be required to buy healthcare.
If I want health insurance I shouldn't be required to buy it.
Even though it is required to have car insurance and house insurance if I have a mortgage, which I do not have a problem with because it's not health, that does not give reason to secure something such as your health (being alive), although I guess it allows you to own cars and houses.
Well of course you can elect not to have a car, and there is no requirement to have home owners insurance.
It is required by the lender, not the government. If you don't like the requirement, don't accept the money.
Point taken.
So, when it comes to health care, if you don't like the requirement (to buy insurance), don't accept the health care - unless you can pay for it. I can live with that.
So, when it comes to health care, if you don't like the requirement (to buy insurance), don't accept the health care - unless you can pay for it. I can live with that.
Fine with me, as long as there is no requirement to pay for the insurance. By the way, this was the opinion the appeals court just handed down.
Fine with me, as long as there is no requirement to pay for the insurance. By the way, this was the opinion the appeals court just handed down.
So, we have agreed that those who do not want insurance do not have to buy it, but in exchange, if they require costly medical care, they don't get it unless they have the cash to pay for it.
On the other hand, what about those who do want to pay for health insurance, but simply do not earn enough to pay current premiums? Do you think some accommodations should be provided for them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.