pudge's Journal: Clinton: You Have No Freedom

"Clinton would force enrollment of young, healthy people, ages 18 to 30, who often forego insurance because they believe they will never get sick. Clinton said their participation was essential because premiums from healthy patients offset higher costs incurred by older patients."

In fairness, Romeny did the same thing in Massachusetts. And he was wrong too. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about Clinton's plan. But this is a tax on BEING ALIVE. You are alive? You have to give us money. That's what this is, and it is despicable.

Hillary and the Democrats want to tax you for being alive, tax you when you die, and use that money to kill you before you're even born!

I love how the Democrats like to complain about how Bush uses fear to take away our rights, and then the Democrats turn around and do the same thing they complained about.

Who do you suppose...

[Bill Dog]

...are these 18-30 year olds who don't have health insurance? When I was in college I was still covered for a number of years under my parents' insurance. When I got too old (I had an, ahem, extended stay in college), I remember going on some plan offered by the uni's health center. Then when I graduated and got a job, I was under the company's plan. If she's talking about the late 20's person who still doesn't know what he wants to do and is just delivering pizzas or something, the other reason they forego

Some things are worth paying for

[TopShelf]

Gasp! Actually collecting taxes to cover a government expenditure? That's crazy talk!

Re:

[pudge]

Who said anything about paying? This is not about money, it is about freedom. Being forced to have health insurance.

If you want to tax me, tax me. But otherwise, leave me the hell alone.

Re:

[TopShelf]

This is where you said something about paying...

But this is a tax on BEING ALIVE. You are alive? You have to give us money. That's what this is, and it is despicable.

I'm not overly crazy about this plan either, but something about Republicans whining over taxes just bothers me.

Re:

[pudge]

This is where you said something about paying...

But this is a tax on BEING ALIVE. You are alive? You have to give us money. That's what this is, and it is despicable.

Yes, but it is not about the money. It's about the freedom. I thought the context was clear. I'd have said the same thing if it was that we had to do something else just for being alive. This abridgment of freedom just happens to be (primarily) in the form of taking our money.

I'm not overly crazy about this plan either, but something about Republicans whining over taxes just bothers me.

What bothers you about it? Any level of taxation for any reason is fine with you? Or you just don't like to hear people complain about things that are wrong?

Re:

[TopShelf]

One thing that bothers me about it is that once they were put in control in Washington, the party that berated Democrats as "tax & spend" turned into a "give tax cuts, then borrow & spend" group that threw away a prime opportunity to significantly reduce the national debt, and in turn, enact a structural, permanent tax cut tied to the lowered amount of debt service. That was a once-in-a-generation chance to improve the country's overall financial position, and the Republicans pissed it away.

Re:

[pudge]

One thing that bothers me about it is that once they were put in control in Washington, the party that berated Democrats as "tax & spend" turned into a "give tax cuts, then borrow & spend" group that threw away a prime opportunity to significantly reduce the national debt, and in turn, enact a structural, permanent tax cut tied to the lowered amount of debt service. That was a once-in-a-generation chance to improve the country's overall financial position, and the Republicans pissed it away.

Well, I have no problem with the tax cut. It's the spending that pisses me off. Apart from that, I agree with you, except for one thing: it's not the party, it's the people representing the party. Trust me, it doesn't bother you nearly as much as it bothers Republican voters. It's the #1 reason why the Democrats captured both houses of Congress in 2006: Republicans voters stayed home because the Republicans in office were not acting like Republicans.

So don't be bothered by Republicans or conservatives

Re:

[Jhon]

Question:

Couldn't this be seen as a violation of the first amendment rights of those who do not believe in modern medicine (such as Christian Scientists)?

Further, I know it's a stretch, but couldn't this likewise be considered a violate of the fifth amendment? Seriously, how much more private is one's body?

Risk: the big lie

[jdavidb]

I've started calling this "the big lie." Government accumulates power by selling us on the idea that without the intervention they propose, we'll be facing a risk that's simply unacceptable. There's a zillion variants. Both parties do it, although I'm persuaded the Democrats do it more. (You probably aren't taking any such stand. :) ) I don't think it necessarily comes from sinister motives, as I really do think most people involved in politics and government believe they are doing what is best for oth

Re:

[pudge]

So here we are: the risk of letting people choose whether or not to insure themselves is simply unacceptable.

I agree with your point: however, in this particular case, it's not about risk, but about shared burden. YOU have to get health insurance because MY MOM might get sick. If only high-risk people had insurance, insurance couldn't work ir would be insanely expensive, as you and everyone else knows. Hillary's answer is not to make insurance more attractive, so more people will voluntarily purchase it, but to instead mandate it. That's her idea of lowering costs: making you pay.