> Every single person in this country should be paying the same monthly fee for coverage.
> Unfortunately in this country, we have people that will yell out "let them die" at a presidential debate about what to do with the uninsured, and why we shouldn't force people to pay for healthcare.
But what if I don't want to pay that monthly fee? What if I, as a person who isn't you, decide I want to spend my $1000/year on something that isn't health care, and I want to die if I get into an accident that requires expensive surgery? Why is that not an acceptable outcome, given that I know about it a priori?
The real argument about health care cannot and should not be separated from taxation or any other economic issue - it's simply a question about how we, as a society, should subsidize poor people to enable them to pay their premiums. If they elect to do so is another issue entirely.
You benefit from everyone else paying for public healthcare, even if you never get sick. Economically it makes sense to have a healthy workforce, and medically it's a really bad idea for people with infectious diseases to stay away from treatment because they think they couldn't afford it.
I have no problems with a blanket tax on that basis alone. It's not as simple as giving people the option to opt out - by doing so they impose a cost on the rest of society even if they never get in an accident or take their symptoms to a doctor. Being a member of society has always been a quid pro quo, and I can't see why healthcare should be excluded from that bargain.
I think in both cases, the driving force behind it is compassion to other human beings. Needless suffering is truly an awful thing. As I found out in Dying Well, which is an amazing book, is that sometimes extreme pain is so severe it can't even be treated properly. In some cases, medically-assisted suicide might be the best way for a very sick individual to take control of their own destiny.
In the case of mandating healthcare, it's not that I think people should have the choice of whether or not to participate in the system, it's just that the rest of us can't go on just letting our fellow citizens die when they get severely injured. It's just unthinkable.
So you're saying that because you, as an emotional person, cannot let me die, you are going to force me to spend my personal income on something I don't want? That sounds very totalitarian.
Also, I think this debate is a rabbit hole since it is a complete strawman. I would argue that, given the correct subsidies by the government and proper knowledge about health care, almost every person in the world would choose to buy a health plan of some sort. If you don't agree with that, you must have a strange view about how the vast majority of people make decisions.
> I would argue that, given the correct subsidies by the government and proper knowledge about health care, almost every person in the world would choose to buy a health plan of some sort.
I certainly agree with that, and the thing that is going to help us get to a system like that is a mandated system. Do you also think social security should be optional and when people get old and can't work they are SOL and left to rot?
People see universal health care as a single thing, unfortunately. Having experienced it first hand, I can say, when it works, it's fine. But when you really need it, it has the tendency to fall through, and you suffer for it. And suffer bad. Essentially, it creates a false sense of security.
We all have to keep our priorities straight. Most likely, you already pay a monthly fee that's being used to fight wars you most probably don't agree should be fought.
Wouldn't you much rather see that money being used to keep you sure that some medical condition won't drive you and your family into financial ruin? That it doesn't matter what kind of weird disease you may get, you'll get proper treatment?
> Every single person in this country should be paying the same monthly fee for coverage.
> Unfortunately in this country, we have people that will yell out "let them die" at a presidential debate about what to do with the uninsured, and why we shouldn't force people to pay for healthcare.
But what if I don't want to pay that monthly fee? What if I, as a person who isn't you, decide I want to spend my $1000/year on something that isn't health care, and I want to die if I get into an accident that requires expensive surgery? Why is that not an acceptable outcome, given that I know about it a priori?
The real argument about health care cannot and should not be separated from taxation or any other economic issue - it's simply a question about how we, as a society, should subsidize poor people to enable them to pay their premiums. If they elect to do so is another issue entirely.