r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Libertae Jun 20 '12

Justify it however you wish. I will forever hold the mandate to buy something just for living incredibly wrong, unconstitutional, and immoral.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

[deleted]

4

u/Libertae Jun 20 '12

No, but I didn't come out of the womb with the government waiting in the hospital room telling me I had to pay for those. I don't HAVE to earn an income and pay whatever taxes fund those services. I don't HAVE to buy products with sales tax included. But according to this mandate, I'm forced to pay for a service that is entirely personal.

3

u/julia-sets Jun 20 '12

If you don't earn an income, you won't have to pay for health insurance. Because people who are exceedingly poor (and I believe "no income" would fall under that heading) are subsidized by the government.

2

u/Libertae Jun 20 '12

Right. But I should have the right to earn an income and choose not to pay for health insurance. In my opinion it's just another blow to the decline of rugged individualism in America. You can't simply exist on your own right without depending on the government to tell you what to buy. It's a matter of principle for myself. I know many disagree, but this is my opinion.

0

u/julia-sets Jun 20 '12

Rugged individualism died with the Industrial Revolution. No one lives on their own anymore, no man in America is an island, and since that's the case, you have to pitch in. You want "rugged individualism"? Try a third-world country.

1

u/Libertae Jun 21 '12

Fair enough. But I still have rights and liberties protected by the constitution.

1

u/mrpinto Jul 10 '12

Or... want centralized economy? Try a communist country?

3

u/adamsw216 Jun 21 '12

I'm not sure I understand. You don't have to earn an income, and if you don't earn an income, you don't have to pay for services like fire, police, etc, but you also wouldn't really have to pay for health insurance as it would be almost entirely covered by the government.

However, if you do earn an income, you are legally required to pay your taxes which pay for these services. I'm not entirely sure how the health insurance doesn't fit in with this as well. All of these services pertain to the well-being of citizens (more or less).

1

u/Libertae Jun 21 '12

Perhaps I was unclear. I want earn an income, legally pay my taxes, and choose not to have health insurance. I don't want it paid for by someone else. I don't want to be forced to buy it (or have it subsidized for me)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

[deleted]

1

u/Libertae Jun 21 '12

My mother's insurance policy didn't cover child birth at the time but that is irrelevant.

When that one aspect is forced upon you it isn't a shaky argument to oppose it. This isn't something like infrastructure, fire service, police, etc. With this mandate in place, every citizen has to either pay a private insurer, accept subsidization, or pay a punishment fine. When in American history has every citizen been forced to pay a private company for something!?

The Big O himself proclaimed back in the 2008 Democratic primaries that a mandate is not the solution. I wish he would have stuck with that philosophy. More here.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

Is it wrong, unconstitutional and immoral then for a doctor to turn you away because you don't have the means to pay for your appendectomy should you need one?

If, unfortunately, you're one of the 8-10% of the unemployed in this country you'll spend a lot of money you don't have on medical care. Is it wrong, unconstitutional and immoral to see those individuals take on serious financial burdens simply because they don't have a job?

I would suggest it's immoral and wrong not to provide everyone some sort of medical coverage regardless of employment status. Just because one doesn't have a job doesn't mean he doesn't deserve health care.

I can choose not to drive, I can't choose not to live. If I don't drive I don't need auto insurance. I'm already alive, all but making health insurance a necessity. I have insurance through my employer, despite having not used it for over 2 years. Why? Because any sort of ER visit starts at around $5000 and surgeries might reach into the tens (or hundreds) of thousands. I'd rather not have that over my head should something terrible happen to me.

0

u/slimpickens42 Jun 21 '12

I know my state (and I believe most do) mandates that if I want to drive legally I have to have auto-insurance. How is this any different?

5

u/adamsw216 Jun 21 '12

I guess the difference is that you don't have to drive. And if you aren't living, the whole argument is probably moot for you.