1) mandating that people get health care is a step in the right direction towards a society where we're all on equal terms.
If everyone is treated badly, they're still treated equally. Equal in and of itself is not just some holy grail to pursue.
2) Let’s be realistic about the fine. It’s going to be waived for low-income people ... and while I’m not sure if the ... fine is coming through... it’s not a significant amount in comparison to paying for health insurance.
If I'm fined for not having a house, that's not the same amount as a house costs either. Most people that argue the fine is not significant, are people that are not hurting financially or that already are paying for health care. How is that realistic to not be in the bracket that will be affected? People always go back to car insurance, yet I don't have to own a car, nor land, nor a house. But to tax someone for having a body? I don't think that's necessary, nor do I think you can sugar coat the idea by justifying it as necessary for health reform.
3) If you really are caught in the grey area of making too much for Medicaid, but still have difficulty paying for private insurance (and trust me, I know people that are there), this bill should make health care more affordable for you through subsidies.
This falls into it the logic of, it has some benefits, therefore having some benefits at all outweigh any and all possible negative outcomes. That argument is illogical.
4) Uninsured people cost the system money. I’ve read reports that uninsured citizens cost the average family up to a $1000 in premiums. Why not make these people pay?
Here's the argument that seems to be the rub for most people (most important one). All these leechers are supposedly draining the system and making it hard for anyone, so we should force them to pay their share. But is this badly done bill the only way to put a stop to this? I don't think so. Are these "leechers" really people that can afford healthcare anyway? If so, there certainly must be better ways to stop them. Are they people that can't afford it? Then socialism is already working, and it is the same thing already in place.
5) This fine may actually put pressure on state governments to get moving on healthcare. I’d like to see the Federal government take charge with single-payer, but that’s a distant dream (for the moment). What’s not a distant dream is that state governments start providing health care.
You're simply assuming this is a good thing. It all depends on how it's done.
There are other arguments to make, as well,
I just want to point out that these are more assertions of opinion than reasoned arguments. An argument details
why something is good, it does not just state that it
is good. In other words, it must be demonstrated that the system really will result in less abuse and less suffering on the whole, and also be as fair as possible, while still promoting the freedom of pursuing happiness.
but let me say that any change of this magnitude is not going to come easy.
It doesn't come easy so we have to do it bad. That's the argument. But I have reason to think that doing it badly may outweigh the positive benefits.
Americans need to wakeup and talk with people who are being crushed under this horrendous, profit driven healthcare system.
There was a time when businesses abused employees because they could. Rather than redo the whole system, and make the government run every single business personally, stricter oversight and regulations have benefited the capitalistic economic structure and prevented abuse. Not every problem has only one way it can be solved.
I drove past some health care protesters today, and one of them had some asinine sign (which looked like a five year old scribbled it) that read something like, “SAVE OUR CONSTITUION: STOP THE HEALTHCARE BILL” and I wondered if the person had any idea of the communitarian principles that marked our Founding Fathers‘ collective thought.
I think it is sad that you assume so many things about those people and why they feel strongly enough to object to the bill to stand with signs, even if they spell poorly. The reasons they might oppose the bill might actually not be because they love to see people suffer and not get medical health. Those people actually might donate personally to help suffering people, rather than ask their government to fix every problem. They might have reasons that are not simply evil and terrible, but that they believe will indeed be more fair for more people and bring more prosperity overall. I just think there's too much demonization from both sides as if that were an argument itself.
And of course I realize how much Congress sucks and how convoluted this bill is, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Simply accepting that it is a step in the right direction isn't enough for me. I need to personally be convinced by the logic of it. Just because they're some benefits or because it looks like a more fair system on the surface, is not convincing, but I think it may be a bit of a blindness to think it is good no matter what simply because it is a universal system.
It’s important, and I’m proud to see Obama use up some political capital in helping make this happen. I know many of you are skeptical of big government, but you should be even MORE skeptical of big insurance companies and big business.
This is the argument of one bad thing is okay because another is worse. That logic does not hold up.
Both are bad things, and both should be reformed. I don't like the idea of giving the government more power and control over peoples lives because of a belief that only the government can fix these problems this way. There are better ways to implement health reform.
“If men were angels, no governance would be needed.”
