You can't seem to get over the assumption that what the laws says is what is right. Procedurally, perhaps we should have a healthcare amendment first, but the Constitution has no bearing on what is right and wrong.
It's a matter of picking battles and citing the fine print. Most people don't really choose their healthcare anyway, as only 5% have individual plans. 51% have employer-based, and the employer's main concern has been holding down costs while offering what can be called "insurance." Obviously some are better than others, but in any case profit works against the goal of maximizing health for health insurance
The Federalist Papers were pieces of well-written propaganda. It's been awhile since I've read them. Present the applicable arguments.
Actually the unhealthy will cost less to the system, because there will be less of a financial barrier to preventive care, which is cheaper for the system than intervention which they cannot legally be denied when they collapse in the ER and later declare bankruptcy after 80k debt.
It is simply not true that everybody can plan for all contingencies. Some people, even responsible people, will get screwed under the status quo.
Underinsured means they can only afford crappy coverage, or they were not smart enough to decipher the fine print. I've read various books on healthcare. Currently reading
Amazon.com: Understanding Health Policy (Lange): Thomas S. Bodenheimer, Kevin Grumbach: Books
My point was that copays can be used for NHI as well in order to discourage overutilization.
The current tax rate for health insurance policies is zero - they have been subsidized that way since the 1940s.
The coercion I was referring to what anticipating the fear of the government forcing healthy choices (as they already do, without NHI). Not the about taxation.
lol, "class warfare." That's the trump card now isn't it?