Healthcare access is a basic right. This is good news, but we still have a lot of work to do to get millions healthcare access.
29 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 28 previous comments
- I think you just love to have someone tell you how to spend your money. Us who like to spend our money how we want to spend it don't like the idea of Government forcing us to purchase something we don't want. The Principle of this law is the Government has control of how you spend your money. I mean it is a great way to boost the economy buy making sure people are forced to buy things.Jun 28, 2012
- no one is telling you how to spend your money. The ruling said that Congress has the right to tax its citizens. If you choose to opt out of the healthcare insurance system, you are liable to pay a tax. The rationale is that your failure to cover your own healthcare costs places a burden on everyone else who has chosen to purchase insurance. That's because in 1986 Congress passed the EMTAL law which required hospitals to provide medical care to regardless of ability to pay. The costs of providing uninsured care is passed on to everyone who has insurance. This is no different from the recent motorcycle helmet law passed here in Michigan. You are no longer required to wear a helmet, but if you choose not to wear a helmet you have to be able to produce proof that you have purchased an insurance rider which will cover your medical bills because of the increased risk of serious injury to the helmetless. Those who choose to ride without a helmet and can't produce proof of insurance will have to pay a fine.Jun 28, 2012
- +Jeffrey Geiger, please give back your House buying mandate refund, to show us that you are truly serious about not having the Gov't forcing us into buying things.
The gov't has been giving us a financial incentive to buy houses for years, and we were never once forced to buy broccoli. (I pay a higher tax because I do carry a mortgage, Mortgage Mandate?)Jun 28, 2012
- Wowyou've nailed it! That's exactly what I want! It's got nothing to do with my desire to see a health care system that provides access to services without causing bankruptcy, or seeing people who are shackled to jobs because they can't leave for fear of losing their insurance, or for with preventing insurance companies from cutting off services to their insured or preventing enrollments for pre-existing conditions, or for putting in place common sense mechanisms to pay for a system like this. Nope, none of that has anything to do with my support for this reform.
As long as we're summing up the opposition, allow me to render my opinion. People who argue your points are masking their "I've got mine, screw you" attitude behind a false cover of personal liberty and freedom.
I think the absolute LAST thing someone who's injured or ill should have to worry about is whether they're going to lose every asset they have to pay for the healthcare they're about to receive. I think this law takes us in that direction. I think it's morally appropriate to expect citizens to pay into a system that must render services to them by law. I think the red herrings your side throws around are symptoms of greed that you'd never admit to.Jun 28, 2012
- G Mack I don't own a home. Also that would be more of a Subsidy than an actual tax. If they are saying here we will give you a tax credit for purchasing X they are incentivizing you to purchase something for the Tax Credit. It is just like when something has an $100 dollar instant rebate they are trying to convince you to buy today.Jun 28, 2012
- they aren't paying into the System they are going to be paying the Government which will use that money more than likely to bomb some other country into the ground. Also the Public Option would do all of that but congress didn't want that did they? Despite 70% of the people wanting it. Congress decided that a Mandate was better something that Obama said was wrong to do in 2008 but I doubt people remember that.Jun 28, 2012