I agree, +Stephen Holst
. That too is why I love G+.
I read this article, and I honestly do feel it is about freedom and the expanse of government. It's not that I feel that healthcare reform is not needed, but just that this is not the way to do it. Our government should never be able to compel someone to engage in economic activity, no matter what the issue or benefits. On the other hand, if you go with the idea that they will
engage in it at some point, I have a novel idea: How about requiring them to pay their obligations?
It is a choice to not carry insurance, and though it may not be a choice when you get ill, you should have to pay for that choice you made, not have the costs spread to the rest of the insured who chose to have that coverage.
The healthcare law does nothing really. Currently I, who carry insurance, pay for those who do not and need treatment through higher rates. With the bill as is, I will pay for them with higher taxes (or less subsidies). All the bill does is force those who do not need insurance at this stage in their life to participate to spread the costs further, and this is my problem - government forcing participation in an economic decision.
An easier solution would have been a $50/month tax on everyone, providing catastrophic coverage to all, and then giving me my money back if I have my own policy. But that would have been a tax, which was political suicide, so they went with a "penalty".
So yes, it's about freedom, and I'm sorry, sometimes that means not forcing me to help my neighbor. Because sometimes my neighbor makes bad choices, and it is not my responsibility to pay for the effects of those choices.