• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Healthcare mandatory?

Should healthcare insurance be mandatory for everyone?

  • Yes. Explain please.

    Votes: 11 31.4%
  • No. Explain please.

    Votes: 24 68.6%

  • Total voters
    35
It falls under social contract. In order to drive on U.S. roads you must have car insurance. In order to live on U.S. soil, you should be required to have catastrophic health insurance. We see these kinds of "social contracts" at all levels of government. For example, as a price of living in the community I live in, I cannot have my grass ass high out front. As a price of living in the United States, you can't just dump your motor oil out in the front yard rather than disposing of it properly.

Now, the problem as I see it with requiring individuals to have a catastrophic policy is that it violates the principle of self ownership. I own me, thus why do I have to insure me? The counter to that though, is that if I own me and you own you, why am I having to bear the financial risk of you choosing not to have a catastrophic policy?

Which is more important? The right to live life without being charged to live that life? Or money? That is what this whole debate boils down to.

I know a lot of people think that they shouldn't be charged for someone else's health care but in this case I would rather everyone be charged for someone else's health care than to be charged for simply living.

BTW, the social contracts that you talk about is not about life. They are about environment.

And your talk about living within the US so you must have health insurance, coupled with your explanation of "I own me" is contradictory unless you are advocating serfdom.

Main Entry: serf
Pronunciation: \ˈsərf\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Old French, from Latin servus slave
Date: 1611
: a member of a servile feudal class bound to the land and subject to the will of its owner

Mirriam-Webster dictionary

What your basically saying is that there is no private property. The land is either A: owned by the federal government or B: by society and no one has private property and thereby you yourself are subject to EVERYTHING that people would subject onto you. Including things like which shows to watch, what foods to eat, and even to the extant of slavery. After all..you live on US soil, not your own.
 
I voted yes. The benefits of a single-risk-pool be it private or public far outweigh the benefits(?) of having us all be divided and many uninsured. (Wait, what are the benefits of the latter exactly?)
 
I voted yes. The benefits of a single-risk-pool be it private or public far outweigh the benefits(?) of having us all be divided and many uninsured. (Wait, what are the benefits of the latter exactly?)

The right to live without being charged for living. If insurance is mandated and you don't have it then you get fined. Fines are appointed to by the Courts. If you do not pay that fine you go to jail. How would you like to go to jail for not paying to live?
 
The right to live without being charged for living. If insurance is mandated and you don't have it then you get fined. Fines are appointed to by the Courts. If you do not pay that fine you go to jail. How would you like to go to jail for not paying to live?

Well, I'm also in favor of it being paid for exclusively by taxation... so in that sense I think people who are tax-evaders SHOULD go to jail. That's just about personal responsibility.
 
Well, I'm also in favor of it being paid for exclusively by taxation... so in that sense I think people who are tax-evaders SHOULD go to jail. That's just about personal responsibility.

Being taxed for simply living is the same thing as being mandated to have health care insurance. Again, how would you like to go to jail for simply living?
 
Being taxed for simply living is the same thing as being mandated to have health care insurance. Again, how would you like to go to jail for simply living?

No, you'd be taxed for earning money, just like all the other taxes we pay. Being taxed so that all of us can live is way more logical than paying out of pocket so that some of us can.
 
No, you'd be taxed for earning money, just like all the other taxes we pay. Being taxed so that all of us can live is way more logical than paying out of pocket so that some of us can.

Actually you get taxed for more than just earning an income. You also get food tax, gas tax, property tax, goods tax etc etc. And from the sounds of things Obamacare would be a tax in and of itself. Much like Medicare is. The difference here though is that Medicare is not mandatory for people to have. And that is the crutch of this whole thread. I don't mind paying into Medicare, weather I end up using it or not. But I do mind making health care insurance mandatory. I won't mind paying into it via taxes. But I do have a problem with making it mandatory. Because once it becomes mandatory it becomes more than just a tax. It becomes a tax on life.
 
Absolutely not. If a person doesn't want insurance, that's their business.
 
If HC is mandatory and I have to pay for others HC, I should be able to
tell them what they can and can not do. i.e. No Smoking, Drinking booze,
eating bad fast food, have pre-marital sex, gay sex, do extreme sports, ride
motorcycles, or doing anything that is dangerous or unhealthy.

But that becomes a sort of dictatorship, which is against our constitution and
Democracy in general, so no, no mandatory Healthcare. No thanks Obama.
 
Now, the problem as I see it with requiring individuals to have a catastrophic policy is that it violates the principle of self ownership. I own me, thus why do I have to insure me? The counter to that though, is that if I own me and you own you, why am I having to bear the financial risk of you choosing not to have a catastrophic policy?
Damn good question -- one I have been asking YOU for some time.
 
The Emergency Department cannot turn anyone away based on their ability or inability to pay. It's illegal.


:2wave:

They can if they deem it a non-Emergency. :(
 
They can if they deem it a non-Emergency. :(

Actually I wish that no hospital treated non-emergency illnesses (like the common cold for example) in the emergency room. That alone would save hospitals (and us) ALOT of money in and of itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom