If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[Petrarch]

If I think someone is doing something wrong morally, then I must have some idea of what I think is right in order to think that. When I then complain about their 'moral injustices', I am going to sound like I think I have the idea of what they should be doing because well...I do think that or else i'd be silent to avoid being hypocritical =P.

Self-righteousness aside, I am honestly by no means a good person!~~~ I am sorry for my unnecessary undertones.

I mean what I say

As for sickipedia, I'm afraid I don't know what it is or why i'd want any points, but mostly, the name is a big turn off.

 

[Shai Gar]

www.Sickipedia.org

 

[dMP2]

One Pissed Cripple (Albeit Unconveniently)

I have an autoimmune arthritis called Ankylosing Spondylitis (this isn't your grandmother's rheumatism). The medication costs about $1300 per month (needless to say I can't afford it). I'll probably have to have all of my major joints replaced in the course of my life (which I also may not be able to afford especially with the dinking around of the financial base that the government is doing). This isn't my first or only serious medical condition. I also have Legg Calve Perthes and Condrolysis. In light of this, I probably have more moral authority (by intimate connection) on this particular issue than most of you.

Anyway, I think it is really naive to think that just liberally (double entendre intended) handing the federal government more power is safe. Just because all of the other industrialized nations do it with health care is no justification (what are we? A heard of mindless animals that just runs with the pack?). Our deviation should be the proud mark of a free people.

The usual justification for saying the government should handle this is saying that it is a basic right comparing it to education, the police, and the fire department. Um... Those are primarily state and local institutions, not federal. I don't care if Massachusetts wants socialized medicine (that is their prerogative), but foisting it on the rest of us is unacceptable. When a single state messes up then the resulting body count is much smaller than when the federal government screws up.

By the way, Ted Kennedy apparently only was a champion for this cause for his own glory. Think about it.

-Massachusetts has health care.
-So, either Ted Kennedy was championing it on a federal level
a) because Massachusetts' system wasn't effective (which then raises serious concerns about how the bigger federal system somehow magically will be)
b) because he was so benevolent and he saw that the rest of us needed to be just like his little perfect Massachusetts (oh how I feel the love).

In either case he was a self serving politician that couldn't give a flying crap about the future of the country as long has his name goes down in history tied to some monumental legislation whatever it be. He asked as a dying wish that fellow senators support this. This is America. Since when did we start putting the wishes of stupid senators over the rights to freedom of average Americans.



Other Democrats (like the ones pretending they are the champions for people like me), keep interpreting opposition to health care reform in terms of racism. These are two distinct issues. Sure health care and racism can intersect. But, to always be doing this (as Democrats are) is a slap in the face for people with serious health care issues (like me). Perhaps while Democrats obfuscate health care reform with racism (and the Republicans take the bait) it would be good to notice that this isn't the 1960s (maybe I'm wrong about the decade here and should cite a bonafide source... but if it were then it would be the Democrats like Al Gore's father that are racist and opposing that odious Republican Martin Luther King. Now that's what I call an inconvenient truth).

Those in favor of universal health care claim that it won't interfere with independent insurance. But, where do we draw the line of how far the government can or should go? Social security? Medicare? This? What next? We're always told that the federal government will go this far and no further to then be told the same lie 10 years down the road. What promise do we have that this is the limit?

NO! No "promise" will do. Not this time. The promise will be given all too easily and it will be all too easily broken.

I for one don't want the government any where near my health care. Those in power seek to increase their power and are bound to abuse it at some time!

A little history lesson in the form of a general circular pattern:

- People, in a state of no government, come together to form one.
- The government starts with limited power because the people see that it could be used to abuse them.
- Problems arise. The people suggest:
a) Let's solve this on our own.
b) Let's empower the government to take care of this from here on out.
- Since freedom breeds luxury and luxury breeds laziness, people gradually tend towards option b.
- Gradually the government sucks up all of the power and becomes totalitarian and abusive (and the luxury gradually evaporates).
- Since this state is unsustainable (a select few in power can't ever hope to match the power and creative genius of free masses), the government either collapses or the people rebel. Whereupon there is no government and the process starts again.

The contemporary political chant of "Yes, we can", be it for health care, the environment, or whatever, is little more than "Save us Caesar". Just a wild notion here, but the Caesars didn't care about health care, the environment, or any other pet project that the Democrats would just drool over. The Caesars cared about power. And how to get power. If that meant exploiting causes for their own end...

So, by all means support health care, carbon taxing, or any other project designed to increase the power of the federal government if you want to sell the country into slavery. But, hey "we'll stick it to those morally corrupt insurance companies" by giving the morally (and fiscally I might add) bankrupt government more power. The funny thing is that from history we can see that we have more to fear from abusive governments than abusive insurance companies.

How is it that those in favor of keeping the power of the government limited are the ones supposedly ignoring facts and being naive here? The naivete here is believing that an all powerful federal government (which we are undeniably headed for) will give a damn about anything worth giving a damn about.

What would health care under Caesar look like? How about for Jews under Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Or, heaven forbid that nightmare incarnate known as, Dubya?

(Since we all know that Bush was worse than any of them or even all of them put together).

Let's just agree to cut the crap, okay. I'd support health care "reform" like most Americans (and a lot of other Democrat pet projects), but I won't support continually increasing the role of government. Maybe the Republicans don't have a "solution" for health care, but the democrats one perennial "solution" (the government can fix) is equally untenable. Where precisely does it end? With the government hauling people like me off to prison because we don't like what the government is doing? Would the Democrats then rise in arms in opposition to this horrendous abuse? (Oh, wait they wouldn't have the weapons to rise with... They let the oh-so-peaceful and responsible government take them.)

This isn't fear mongering. Calling it that is just dodging the issue. These are real valid concerns with historical precedents.

Freedom, manifested by limited government, is the justice that the history slowly but inevitably bends towards. But, if you want a king, an emperor, or a dictator then by all means run to the federal government every time you have an "owy". Which side of history will you be on?

I for one can stand on my own two feet (no matter how crippled they may be). I don't want their health care. I don't need their health care. I say to hell with their overhaul. And I say to hell with more government infringement.



As INFJs having good intentions and wanting to help people, it would be good to remember that we might accidently do more harm then good. The government isn't the best nor the only tool for the job. The road to hell on earth can really be paved with good intentions.

 

[Satya]

Can I suggest you put the ideology aside.

This issue has very little to do with giving substantial power to the federal government that it doesn't already have. The number of people who would have been covered under the public option was calculated to be less than 1% of the population. For all the whooping and hollering, the public option was a grand leap away from socialized medicine.

It's pretty much irrelevant at this point. The Senate compromises on their health care bill favor using the Hillary Clinton plan of using the same private service that Congress uses for the general American public rather than a public option. They will simply expand Medicare.

Now something for you to consider. How many people are covered under Medicare and Medicaid? How much money goes into those services? Those are far closer to socialized medicine than the public option would have been. The public option amounted to no more than an insurance plan offered by the government to compete against the private insurers. The only reason it got any of this ideological hooplah was because the insurance companies were afraid of the competition from the government.

This is why I advise people to actually look at the actual figures. Look how easy it was for the politicians and insurance companies to get you in an uproar about how your very freedom was at stake.

 

[dMP2]

Ideology?

You dodged the issue by calling it ideology.

My personal health problems aren't ideology. They are a fact. I can't put them aside.

Abusive governments aren't ideology. They are a fact. I shouldn't ignore it.

I just don't want the government near my health care (whether it be Republican or Democrat) because they'll abuse the power (no matter the party). I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea. This shouldn't be interpreted to mean, however, that I believe in total deregulation (excessive regulation vs. excessive deregulation is another issue that I'm no expert on).

I'm not trying to press ideology here. I'm not trying to criticize you (or anyone else in this forum) in that post.

My health issues are mine and they are deeply personal. It isn't unreasonable to assume that some of these politicians want to get between me and my doctor. And that is a place, because of their incompetence in the field, they have no right to be. And the medicine is highly unlikely to get anywhere near where the hurt is.

It makes me mad when they hold people like me up as their poster boy to serve their political ends, when we don't all like what they want to do.

As you said, "They will simply expand Medicare." That sounds like the perennial solution of government expansion to me... But, if they already have the power, as you assert, then I assert in return that it is power they don't justly have.

I got in a hooplah because, like many Americans, I believe it is the government's job to govern/regulate, not compete with insurance companies or provide for our every need (promote the general welfare is becoming a rather abused phrase and an unwarranted extrapolation).

And I got into a hooplah all by myself without insurance companies or modern politicians telling me too. Evidently from these posts I'm no fan of politicians in general. And I don't think insurance companies are any more honest than the government, they're just relatively less dangerous.

I guess you're right though. Now that I think about it I did get in a hooplah because of what a politician said:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

I wasn't pressing ideology because I'm open to reforming health care and said as much in the post (if done through proper regulation). I just don't want a dangerous increase in government power (which will happen anyway and continue to happen until we have a new revolution of sorts).

I just kind of wish we could get off of this insane roller coaster ride.

1. Create New Government.
2. Transform into Oppressive Government.
3. Fight a Bloody Violent Final Revolution.
4. Repeat.

 

[randomsomeone]

Abusive governments aren't ideology. They are a fact.

I think this might be an overstatement.

 

[Azure_Knight]

It depends on the government, but there's always abuse because people are involved.

 

[bamf]

Well if our system was set up in a way that all people could actually (in a reasonable manner) attain enough wealth to actually provide for their own health care, we wouldn't need universal health care. Our system is set up in a way that can only work if there are people in poverty. Our economy works on expansion and retraction. There has to be a pool of people that are always outside of the working class, or they have to be in the position that is able to throw them back into poverty in a heart beat. When the market's doing well, it sucks the impoverished into the work force, when the market is doing bad, the impoverished are back on the street. According to an associated press article back in October(http://www.nydailynews.com/money/20...formula_puts_1_in_6_americans_in_poverty.html), between 13.2% and 15.8% of Americans live below the poverty line. You can't chalk all up to laziness.

There are people in our country who have no means to pay for their health care. Sure, in a life or death situation the hospital can write off patients that can't pay for their bills, but for things like cancer and the such, they simply have to live with it. It's a destruction in quality of life. Our economic system is set up in a structurally unjust way, which is fine, as long as we provide and educate those who simply have no means of doing so.

If people want our system economic system to run the way it does, they have to realize that they are participating in a system that structurally and systematically keeps people in poverty. If we are going to use such a system, we need to stop our bitching and help those who have no means of getting ahead; it's indirectly because of us that they're in the position anyway (well some of them, some are there by laziness, but definitely not all).

 

[Satya]

I just don't want the government near my health care (whether it be Republican or Democrat) because they'll abuse the power (no matter the party). I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea. This shouldn't be interpreted to mean, however, that I believe in total deregulation (excessive regulation vs. excessive deregulation is another issue that I'm no expert on).

I don't hear you calling for the abolishment of Medicare or Medicaid, so I'm not entirely sure what this argument has to do with anything but ideology. How exactly has the government been stripping you of your freedom since the 1960s when those government healthcare programs were created? And how would a public option affect you? There would have been no reason you would have had to have chosen that insurance option over a private one. I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand anything about this debate aside from the ideology. But please feel free to answer my questions and prove me wrong. Do you even know anything about the current legislation in either the House or the Senate? What specifically within those pieces of legislation would infringe upon your health care?

It takes a little bit more than quoting Thomas Jefferson and proclaiming your ideological stance in how government involvement will undoubtedly infringe on your health care and freedom, to be an informed citizen and consumer. Frankly, you just seem anti government, and that stance has very little to do with health care.

Oh, and a little lesson. If you want to come off as not preaching your personal ideology, then it might benefit you to find a specific issue that you have with the actual legislation and explain in detail why that would be bad for the county. Broadly proclaiming that you don't want the government in your health care is not a valid or reasonable argument.

 

[dMP2]

Persuit of Happiness vs. Mandated Happiness

Well if our system was set up in a way that all people could actually (in a reasonable manner) attain enough wealth to actually provide for their own health care, we wouldn't need universal health care. Our system is set up in a way that can only work if there are people in poverty. Our economy works on expansion and retraction. There has to be a pool of people that are always outside of the working class, or they have to be in the position that is able to throw them back into poverty in a heart beat. When the market's doing well, it sucks the impoverished into the work force, when the market is doing bad, the impoverished are back on the street. According to an associated press article back in October(http://www.nydailynews.com/money/20...formula_puts_1_in_6_americans_in_poverty.html), between 13.2% and 15.8% of Americans live below the poverty line. You can't chalk all up to laziness.

There are people in our country who have no means to pay for their health care. Sure, in a life or death situation the hospital can write off patients that can't pay for their bills, but for things like cancer and the such, they simply have to live with it. It's a destruction in quality of life. Our economic system is set up in a structurally unjust way, which is fine, as long as we provide and educate those who simply have no means of doing so.

If people want our system economic system to run the way it does, they have to realize that they are participating in a system that structurally and systematically keeps people in poverty. If we are going to use such a system, we need to stop our bitching and help those who have no means of getting ahead; it's indirectly because of us that they're in the position anyway (well some of them, some are there by laziness, but definitely not all).

I'm pretty sure that I'm below or near that poverty line. I don't find the pursuit of green paper that enthralling (digital watches aren't the coolest thing in the universe either).

But, you can't mandate happiness or riches. You'll fail miserable trying (and cause a lot of other people misery in the mean time).

The best incentive ever invented is self preservation (and of community). If you subvert that you do the country great harm. In which case, proponents of this "mandate" approach are either ignorant or malicious.

 

[bamf]

I'm pretty sure that I'm below or near that poverty line. I don't find the pursuit of green paper that enthralling (digital watches aren't the coolest thing in the universe either).

But, you can't mandate happiness or riches. You'll fail miserable trying (and cause a lot of other people misery in the mean time).

The best incentive ever invented is self preservation (and of community). If you subvert that you do the country great harm. In which case, proponents of this "mandate" approach are either ignorant or malicious.

So you equate health care to forced happiness? I doubt that just because you don't want health care means that people on the street don't want some health care either.

 

[Satya]

So you equate health care to forced happiness? I doubt that just because you don't want health care means that people on the street don't want some health care either.

Don't waste your time arguing ideology mf. You can't reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into in the first place. I've met plenty of these brainwashed people who make the "government involvement in the market is bad" argument, but they are always the first waiting in line when their kid gets sick and they don't have the health care to cover it. And of course, by that point it ends up costing the tax payer far more than it would have had the government been involved earlier on. It's ignorance, not based on the facts or the policy, but on a misguided fear of authority.

You will notice that dpM2 didn't answer a single one of my questions.

 

[Billy]

Don't waste your time arguing ideology mf. You can't reason someone out of something they were never reasoned into in the first place. I've met plenty of these brainwashed people who make the "government involvement in the market is bad" argument, but they are always the first waiting in line when their kid gets sick and they don't have the health care to cover it. And of course, by that point it ends up costing the tax payer far more than it would have had the government been involved earlier on. It's ignorance, not based on the facts or the policy, but on a misguided fear of authority.

You will notice that dpM2 didn't answer a single one of my questions.

And I am guessing you aren't arguing based on ideology right Satya? Speaking of not answering questions... wait no need to rehash the past.

 

[Satya]

And I am guessing you aren't arguing based on ideology right Satya? Speaking of not answering questions... wait no need to rehash the past.

Feel free to answer the questions yourself Billy,

I don't hear you calling for the abolishment of Medicare or Medicaid, so I'm not entirely sure what this argument has to do with anything but ideology. How exactly has the government been stripping you of your freedom since the 1960s when those government healthcare programs were created? And how would a public option affect you? There would have been no reason you would have had to have chosen that insurance option over a private one. I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand anything about this debate aside from the ideology. But please feel free to answer my questions and prove me wrong. Do you even know anything about the current legislation in either the House or the Senate? What specifically within those pieces of legislation would infringe upon your health care?

I'm always open to hearing your input. XD

And no, I don't argue from ideology. I try to argue from evidence. You might notice I cite specific facts about the legislation.

 

[dMP2]

Ideology vs. Facts

I don't hear you calling for the abolishment of Medicare or Medicaid, so I'm not entirely sure what this argument has to do with anything but ideology. How exactly has the government been stripping you of your freedom since the 1960s when those government healthcare programs were created? And how would a public option affect you? There would have been no reason you would have had to have chosen that insurance option over a private one. I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand anything about this debate aside from the ideology. But please feel free to answer my questions and prove me wrong. Do you even know anything about the current legislation in either the House or the Senate? What specifically within those pieces of legislation would infringe upon your health care?

It takes a little bit more than quoting Thomas Jefferson and proclaiming your ideological stance in how government involvement will undoubtedly infringe on your health care and freedom, to be an informed citizen and consumer. Frankly, you just seem anti government, and that stance has very little to do with health care.

Oh, and a little lesson. If you want to come off as not preaching your personal ideology, then it might benefit you to find a specific issue that you have with the actual legislation and explain in detail why that would be bad for the county. Broadly proclaiming that you don't want the government in your health care is not a valid or reasonable argument.

I didn't think you were being rude. But, it is verifiable fact that I'm not brainwashed. Careful of being libelous. You've never met me and have no authority to put me into a box. This gimp will not get to the back of you bus. Okay.

What I've said is more than ideology because I've been giving/referring to facts as to why I have these views. Let me enumerate them.

Fact: I have serious health concerns.
Fact: These health issues are personal.
Fact: Many politicians hold people like me up as their poster boy/girl.
Fact: This can be considered patronization.
Fact: Many of us handicaps don't like the above patronization.
Fact: Government is involved in health care.
Fact: Many (not all) want to increase government involvement in health care to extremes.
Fact: Governments frequently, but not all the time, tend towards abuse.

Reasonable Conclusion: Some (including politicians) want to have the government between me and my doctors. This isn't a good thing.

Reasonable Question: Where do we draw the line of involvement?
Reasonable Question: What would constitute proper involvement?
Reasonable Question: Are you one of the ones that wants the government between my and my doctor? (I don't believe you are, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

Fact: We've drawn lines for government before only to have them crossed.

I don't know much about medicare or medicaid (I hadn't been conceived when they were conceived) beyond a slight personal uneasiness about them (I won't annoy you with that).

It is self evident that the government has been stripping us (not me in particular) of our freedoms since it's foundation (not just the 1960s, the 1960s bit that I wrote was about racism and the democrats current hypocritical use of it in the current debate). The very creation of government infringes on our freedoms (that's okay because it is necessary), but then it gradually encroaches more and more (not okay). That is just the breaking down of the system due to a manifestation of entropy in a human institution.

What do I know about the health care legislation?

- The public option is momentarily dead (hurray), but it may under go a magical resurrection down the road (not so good).

- I know that I personally wouldn't be forced into the public option at this time if it did pass.

- Illegals may still get coverage through loop holes despite attempts to prevent this.

- That leads me to something else I know, the debate is rather uncivilized on both sides and the sum/substance of the debate seems to be about racism.
1. Wilson shouldn't have yelled at Obama (no matter who is right).
2. Carter and Reid shouldn't compare this to slavery or racism (it is a slap in the face to people like me who oppose health care that aren't looking only through the lens of the 1960s civil rights movement), I don't know about the suffrage comparison. If comparisons to racism are any metric at all, then Reid and Carter are shooting themselves because their party was on the wrong side of history there.

- I know that it isn't easy to get details on things like this.

- A version of the bill (but who knows which version): http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

- I know it's 615 pages of legalese (didn't we go through something similar to this with the patriot act). I don't have time to read every single novel that congress produces.

- I know like most people I'll have a hard time understanding it. Maybe I'm just stupid and paranoid, but this sort of situation leaves me rather nervous.

I'll read/peruse this. Have you read it? Can anyone really pretend to completely understand all of the implications of this 615 page novel? No. This bill is little more than a shot in the dark. We're running around with our heads cut off. I don't THINK THIS bill will infringe on my health care. But, I THINK it is a step in the wrong direction (in light of the facts I enumerated earlier). Government infringement rarely happens on a grand scale, but little by little. I think this bill is a little step.

As for quoting Jefferson, not many do that effectively. I found some conservatives selectively editing his "sum of good government" quote to favor their ideology and it pissed me off. But, liberals just seem to ignore many of the things he said because many are bound to not sit right with what they do. If I blatantly ignore or misquote important statements like this, then please let me know. But, other then that, quoting what they said should never be ridiculed. Can you quote Jefferson? How about other founders of the country? Do you understand what they told us? Do believe it is even relevant? Madison said this about the currently much abused "promote the general welfare" clause.

'With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.' (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_James_Robertson)

The constitution (you know the already ratified existing supreme law of the land) says with respect to this issue,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Some key words are PROMOTE (quiet distinctly not "guarantee") and GENERAL (as in benefiting all citizens, not a select few who are uninsured). So, it would appear the health care bill is unconstitutional. This should be an individual state issue under the 11 amendment (where it can be dealt with more practically anyway). But, I suppose you could take it to the supreme court getting them to declare it "constitutional" (when the average person can read the constitution, it's less than 615 pages you know, and see that it isn't constitutional). Persisting in this sort of abuse of government power would eventually leave "we the people" (you know the GENERAL populace) one course of action we don't particularly like... You'll find it referred to in the second amendment.

Again, this isn't preaching ideology. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water as it were. Sure, I have my ideology in here (please feel free to ignore it). But, many of these are verifiable facts. Again, I don't want this it be an angry pointless conversation back and forth. I want to understand your side and I want my side to be understood so that we can come to a happy appropriate middle ground.

 

[Satya]

1. Marbury versus Madison in 1803 gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.
2. The Supreme Court utilized judicial review in the 1936 case of the United States versus Butler and ruled that....

Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

As such, the Supreme Court decided within the guidelines of the Constitution that "general welfare" was not limited to the specific powers enumerated to Congress by the Constitution.

Frankly, your position is primarily ideological. It ignores 2 centuries of legal precedent to argue, what would have been the intentions of the 18th century, elitist, white slave owning males who founded the country. The founders designed the Constitution to evolve via Article V amendments and court interpretations of the Constitutionality of laws.

As such, health care reform is perfectly Constitutional.

As far as your arguments on government infringement, you are correct. It does happen little by little. Of course, what you have failed to consider is that true government infringement historically happens through military buildup aka defense spending. Look at Nazi Germany. While you are fearful of health care, have you actually looked at the trends of defense spending for the last 2 decades? The United States already spends more on defense spending than the rest of the world spends combined. Eisenhower warned Americans to look out for the military industrial complex, not the health care system. I can't think of any historical or economic precedent by which government has overthrown freedom by expanding into health care.

 

[Azure_Knight]

Medicare is predicted to run out in 2017.
Social security is predicted to run out in 2037.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html


One of the problems that I have with the bills being passed around in the House and Senate is that the IRS will become a healthcare inforcer (through taxation).

House version:
The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at "any time" during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:

(a) TAX IMPOSED.

 

[Satya]

I think those are legitimate concerns. How the reform is going to be paid for, the taxes, the role of the IRS, etc. these are the kind of issues that people should be discussing.

The reason I find the ideological argument of government infringeing on freedom to be obtuse in this debate is because nobody wants to explain exactly how it is going to do so. At the same time, the very same people who make the claim that government involvement in health care is an infringement on freedom never explain how defense spending and the wars are not. I don't support the Iraq war, so are you not infringing on my freedom by making me pay for it through my taxes?

 

[bamf]

Lol

Lets stop funding public schools, police and fire, and infrastructure as well.
They infringe on my rights not to educate my kids, to let my house burn down, and from driving on the grass.

Once again, our system is set up in a way that will only work if people are in poverty. By allowing and participating in such a system, it is our social responsibility to take care of those who are impoverished so we can flourish.

 

[Azure_Knight]

I've also been wondering how/if HIPAA will affect the IRS if/when healthcare data is given to them. Would it mean that government workers have to complete HIPAA training and sign some sort of policy (like healthcare workers do)?

The issue of dependence also comes up. If we depend on all of these things from our government (one system), what will happen if the system fails? After watching the aftermath of the financial crisis, I think it is more important than ever to be able to support yourself and to be as independent as possible. You obviously can't provide for all of your needs as a citizen (fire, police, military, healthcare, etc), but I think that overdependence can be very bad. I can't think of many entities that could help another government in trouble (except maybe another government or a large group of corporations).