How is voting in the least bit comparable to owning insurance? And who ever said anything about health care being a right? This is about making health care affordable for everyone. Or are you suggesting that health care should be a luxury?
You dont agree that health care is a right? If that's the case, then what business does the government have in making sure tha everyone has access to the means to exercise a privilige?
I was excplaing why your 'we require car insurance' argument doesn't work.
Auto insurance is a requirement necessary to exercise an optional privilege so that people do not financially suffer from the damage you might cause. This is NOT the rationale behind The Obama's plan, that requires you to exercise a right just to live here, and will fine you if you don't. Apples and tuna.
People who get sick can get other people sick.
This isnt in any way comparable to running a red light and hitting someone elses' car.
And the realty is that getting sick is going to cost everyone one way or another anyways because they aren't going to deny you treatment.
This is an -optional- reality. It doesnt HAVE to be this way; that this condition is not necessary negates it as legitimate support your your argument.
The reason we have these kinds of programs is because "paying out of pocket" was not a viable option for many of the country's poor and elderly but they still get sick and cost everyone else, so it is in the country's best interest to pay for them if they can't buy it themselves.
You didn't even read what I said.
They cannot pay out of pocket because the costs are too high.
Lower costs, thru competition, and then they can.
So you are arguing that it is more important to cut costs....
Isnt that the entire point of health care reform?
...than to provide health care to those who need it?
Its not MY responsibility to provide health care to anyone that I do not choose to provide health care to.
That isn't exactly loving your neighbor as you love yourself, but you are entitled to your values I guess.
You are responible for you, not me.
But, given that you make a moral argumet here -- who are you to force your morality on others?
Huh? You are going to need to explain your logic behind this.
-Insurance companies will be forced to take people with PEC
-They will have to charge these people much more than those without.
-They will not be allowed to do so.
-The compaies will need to make up the costs somehow, and will raise raites for everyone else.
Cutting funding does create competition and that is why it does lead to greater efficiency.
Or, and more likely, it reduces the quality of the goods and services provided.
No, that is utterly false. 60% of Americans living in poverty are not covered under Medicaid.
No, it completely true. The 'fact' you note only illiustrates there is a difference between the threshold for medicaide and the definition of poverty. Medicaide is -absolutely- a program exclusively for poor; that not everyone that has income under a certain level is covered by medicade does not in any way change this.
Ah, so the person who doesn't seem to know about our current health care system is demanding proof that we need reform.
I'll take that as you admitting you cannot provide proof of that need.
You THINK there needs to be reform. Your opinion does not illustrate the existence of a necessary condition.
The nonpartisan CBO says it will increase prescription coverage. Your move.
The argument was "could", as in 'there exists a possibility'.
This is not a solid foundation for an argument, as I illustrated.