[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

There is a lot to what you say. But, going from the general idea of helping the needy to the specific of how to do it, my first concern is that we don't automatically look to the Federal Government everytime there is a problem. As you may have noted by now, I believe that straying from the Constitution is the main reason the Federal Government has become as large, nearly if not all-powerful, and out of the control of the citizens. We The People are supposed to be the sovereign from which power is granted to our governments. It is, now, late in the process of turning this upside down so that Government is the supreme sovereign which grants to we the people whatever rights and oblligations that it deems necessary and proper.

The Constitution mainly intended that the States and their citizens were to grapple with the bulk of how we govern our lives including ALL things not granted to the Federal Government. If the People of every State want a Massachussets style health insurance plan, they can choose that. The Constitution does not grant that power to the Federal government. There is a FUNDAMENTAL reason that it is so. If you believe in individual freedom, you will understand that reason. Individual freedom thrives in smaller units of local government. A large, all-powerful, central government that can dictate at will is the enemy of individual freedom. The irony is that large government over small people is actually weaker than smaller government under a strong people. The latter is stronger in almost every way, including, and especially, economically. It is the freest, most innovative, most evolutionary and adaptable form of society, and as such, the most capable of providing for all, including the unfortunate. If you reduce the power of the People and transfer that power to government, the freedom, innovation, adaptability, all diminish, and, though the government is great and all-powerful, the people and their creativity are diminished, and society gradually, and then ,eventually, quickly withers.

As for insurance, in general, I have a probably oversimplistic view. My perception is that as more than some minor percentage of a population is enrolled in insurance, the less beneficial it is to them. When a small percentage of a population is in an insurance plan, the cost of what is insured is based on the ability of the large percentage of the population that is uninsured and must pay out of pocket. So the insurance company pays out much less in claims and the insured can pay less in premiums. In such a situation, there is an ADVANTAGE to being insured. But when the great percentage of the population is insured, the cost of medical care, for instance, is based on what the third party (the insurance company) can pay, which is much greater than what most can pay out of pocket. So the cost to reimburse claims is much higher, and the premiums are much higher, and a point is reached where a universal coverage gives no advantage to being insured. And if the Government is the third party, you not only have the "wealthiest" third party, but loss of market forces and all the corruption the government can provide to its lobbyists and cronies.

Out of pocket with catastrophic coverage and private charity with various State safety nets might be the best way. Federally mandated is probably the worst, and it chips away at the few remaining glimpses of Constitutional self-government remaining.