First, it isn't unconstitutional as constituted, and second, it CERTAINLY would not be unconstitutional if it was constructed as a tax incentive, like the hundreds of tax incentives we already have in the tax code. But we can't have anything that looks like a new tax because one side of the aisle has bowed down to an unelected idealogue and shackled themselves to a ridiculous pledge.
Well, constitutionality is still to be determined, I grant that. Incentive is certainly a misleading term here, however. It's not a gift if you start with the penalty in higher taxes and simply get that removed. It is a punishment if you don't buy a private product. That's fascism, which is not okay in my book.
You seem not to get the insurance concept. Everyone NEEDS health insurance because anyone can be fall ill at any time, and treatment for any moderately serious condition can bankrupt anyone who isn't very wealthy. Younger people may pay a little more than they should from an actuarial standpoint, but that evens out over time (as they will pay less than they should later in life).
The only way expanding the insurance pool doesn't benefit the already insured is if the government stops providing free medical care for those who don't have insurance. If you are a true libertarian then I'm sure you would support that. And that presents us with another (not false) dichotomy. Either people are forced to buy insurance or pay a relatively small fine and they can receive medical care no matter what, OR people can elect not to buy insurance and if they get very ill, they run through all their money until they run out, at which point they are sent home (or out on the street) to die. I'm sure you're fine with that but I'm not and I suspect most Americans aren't either.
As the victim of two heart attacks, I have some knowledge of insurance. My first heart attack came when I was 26 and had no insurance. I was healthy (as in worked out daily healthy). I had no insurance. What I did have was the power to negotiate and the kindness of strangers. A privately funded charity helped with a portion of the bills. On the rest, I negotiated with the hospital, surgeons, and physicians. I paid ~15% of the bills and everyone came out in the positive. Insurance would have been better, but I did find another option.
Your dichotomy, as stated, would be appropriate if it wasn't based on a false premise. I'm a libertarian, but that means wanting the least government we can
responsibly have. I'm not for removing health care for those who can't afford it. I am for finding a better option.
No it isn't. You might want to brush up on your Latin.
Reductio ad absurdum translates into "reduction to the absurd". While the general definition as a debate fallacy may not directly apply, you oversimplified my stance to one absurd statement. So, the latin translation does actually favor my statement.
I think that it's a gross exaggeration to say that health care reform has given the government "immeasurable new power." Unfortunately the whole thing is quite modest in its scope. It expands coverage, provides most Americans more choice, and generally provides better coverage. A free market approach does not work very well when there is a huge imbalance in bargaining power, access to information, and knowledge. That's a big part of the reason our current system costs twice as much as most other systems.
Again, there are other options. I stated before that I would rather the government streamlined it into more of true cost/demand issue.
I don't disagree that health care has problems and needs some sort of reform. That goes under the word responsible in my statement above.
