Why should I be forced to buy health insurance?

HRE wrote:

You're already paying for insurance for people who do risky things unless you don't have insurance. And people who don't do risky things can get cheaper health insurance so there are essentially penalties for engaging in certain kinds of risky behaviors. And how are you going to check to see if someone smokes or drives drunk or determine who gets to decide what behaviors are risky enough to prevent someone from getting subsidized health insurance. Oh, wait, I know the answer to the second part of that question. It'll be you!

How to check? It is very easy. Insurance companies already do screenings and evaluations before they offer you a price. Companies also drug test.

I don't know why you are pretending this is complicatec or a ridiculous idea. Smoking is obviously a COMPLETELY voluntary risky choice with expensive damage. If you smoke, you get a reduced subsidy. If you don't want a recuced subsidy, then don't smoke.

Apply the same thing for other activities that are completely under your control and are testable (smoking, obesity, IV drug use, etc).

I agree, don't smoke if you don't want to pay more for health insurance but what's to prevent a smoker from simply saying he doesn't smoke when he's buying health insurance or saying that he drinks a beer or two each week when he's knocking back a six pack or two a day? Yes, you can do screens for drug use and some other things but you can't eliminate risky behaviors or even define them precisely.

If you have some sort of collective system to cover sickness, accidents, etc. it's impossible to avoid paying for people who do "risky" things and it just gets tiresome listening to people who whine about it. If you don't want to pay for smokers' health insurance or for drug users health insurance and so, on pay the fine for not having insurance yourself and save your money so you can pay your medical expenses out of pocket.

exthrower wrote:

Young and healthy wrote:

I am healthy and don't want insurance. I am paying for health costs of the elderly and sick.

Also, I drive safely and never had an accident, why am I forced to buy car insurance for those who get into accidents.

Same thing with fire insurance.

And school taxes.......I have no kids. Those with kids should pay.

Because Obama is a closet Communist and has an immature vision of total equality on Earth...Even if we are all miserable...

You are the dumbest person on these boards. Everyone knows that. But are you at least aware that Obama is not in office any longer?

dc-guy wrote:

OP, if you don't want to buy health insurance, then you don't deserve any other protections as a citizen. You don't really need police, fire depts, any doctors, or laws. You're always free to leave the country.

Actually, the Constitution makes no reference to health care, so providing health care falls through the 10th amendment to the States or to the people. Any Federal policy involving health care is un-Constitutional and therefore a violation of the law of the land.

The ones pushing for national health care are the lawless ones.

A gov tasked with protecting the unalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness seems to reasonably have not just constitutional authority but responsibility to safeguard access to healthcare.

Now that you mention "makes no reference", where in the ACA does it mention holding guns to anyone's head. What is that nonsense about?

DiscoGary wrote:

..... In this second case you would pay what you could, and the doctors would take what they could get... exactly like it used to be before we decided that we would all rather put a gun to our neighbor's head and force them to pay for our needs, rather than appeal to their charitable nature. And while we are holding that gun to our neighbor's head, we are claiming this proves how compassionate we are as a people. How ironic. It proves the opposite. The person holding the gun is showing no compassion, and the person forced to hand over their money is showing no compassion either.

The old system worked very well. The new system will is failing badly and will have devastating consequences which go far beyond health care. It is turning people against each other. Bad stuff. The road to Hell...

What a whitewashed version of telling Erik he'd go bankrupt. Then you have the gall to say such a system "worked very well". And make it worse by suggesting a newer system where neither Erik, the Drs or anyone else goes bankrupt is somehow devoid of compassion.

I feel like there should be some opt out clause on buying insurance monthly in the ACA if you're under 40 and healthy. BUT if you don't want to pay monthly you should be forced to open a L.O.C. in your name at 15% APR for $1m that will cover any future health care expenses - this LOC debt would not be covered by personal bankruptcy chapters.