Sunday, September 18, 2011
Persuasive Evidence
So, "they're" saying now that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Alright, fine. What about this scenario instead? Instead of the government mandating that an individual purchase a health insurance plan/policy, the government STRONGLY SUGGESTS that the individual purchase one. No, you don't have to buy health insurance (at a sliding scale of affordability, obviously), BUT, if you don't purchase a policy, then the government doesn't have to provide you with Medicaid AND a hospital isn't required to treat you. Yes, they certainly can if they choose to and a charity can also kick in but NOTHING in terms of a free lunch from the U.S. taxpayers. What do you say that we get together and call this plan the "individual suggestion"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Are you suggesting that we offer the "individual suggestion" in place of our civilized society?
Certainly works better, and makes more sense than the "Big Brother/Sister Leviathan Government Mandate foisted upon everyone by the three stooges.
You know... Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. THE DYNAMIC TRIPLETS of Leviathan.
Jerry, what I'm suggesting is there shouldn't be a free lunch. Why is it fair for responsible people who DO carry insurance to carry the frigging free loaders who always choose not to. And like I said at the beginning, the insurance would be on a sliding scale of affordability. For those who wouldn't be able to afford it, the government would help them as needed with the premiums.
Will, so let me get this straight. An individual who can afford to and wants to pay cash for his health care now loses any right to Medicare when he gets old and has the risk that a hospital could turn him away because he doesn't have insurance?
That doesn't sound right to me. Why can't a person choose to pay cash for health services?
"what I'm suggesting is there shouldn't be a free lunch"
That is exactly what a mandate is all about.
Jerry, perhaps I wasn't clear. My proposal (which is only partially tongue-in-cheek) is in response to/in lieu of the individual mandate possibly being ruled unconstitutional. Yes, a mandate of sorts would be preferable. But if we couldn't get that, I think that we have to make it abundantly clear to the populace that they simply can't wait to get sick before they start to take responsibility. They need to have their skin in the game from the get............HR, no, my proposal wouldn't affect Medicare ( a program that people pay into via payroll contributions) in the least. It would only impact on people who are under 65 and gaming the system.
Will, your suggestion was only PARTIALLY tongue-in-cheek? I guess that makes sense... for a guy who thinks the genocidal Columbus is unfairly criticized by some. Maybe you should consider voting for Ron Paul in 2012... his supporters agree with you about sitting back and doing nothing while people die due to a lack of health care.
The people wouldn't have to die, wd. All that they would have to do is purchase health insurance at a sliding scale of affordability (the government would help them with cost as needed). Why should the people who play according to the rules have to pay for the people who don't?......And your comparing my proposal to Mr. Paul's is a flat-out/idiotic mischaracterization. In my plan, the people would be helped by the government to purchase insurance. Mr. Paul doesn't want to help the citizenry at all.......And, AGAIN, with Columbus, the vast percentage of those Caribbean natives who perished perished because of their inability to fight off the small pox (and other) virus. To imply that Columbus was like Pol Pot and that he hammered to death hundreds of thousands of innocent victims is asinine - though, yes, exceedingly typical for you.
People wouldn't have to die, but they would. In some cases the deaths would be extremely painful and agonizing. btw, I wasn't comparing yours and Ron Paul's plans, I was just pointing out that you both want people who make bad decisions to die.
You always say voting for a politician is a "mixed bag"... so that's the mixed bag... Paul supports the letting people die part of your plan but not the assistance buying insurance part.
Although, as much as you may want people who make bad decisions to die, I'm going to guess that increasing the profits of the big insurance companies is probably of a higher importance in your opinion. So voting for Paul is definitely out.
As for Columbus... I stick with my assessment of the man as a mass murderer, however asinine that makes me...
From Native News Online... A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described first-hand how the Spaniards terrorized the natives. ...eye-witness accounts of repeated mass murder and routine sadistic torture. ...One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. ...This was not occasional violence -- it was a systematic, prolonged campaign of brutality and sadism, a policy of torture, mass murder, slavery and forced labor that continued for centuries. "The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world", writes historian David E. Stannard.
Post a Comment