Did We Forget Why We Are Here?

Well said Ms Whittle. There is a major difference between requirments to insure against doing harm to others during an activity you can choose not to participate in and requirments to insure yourself against risks you may be willing to assume without support from others. Also, while it is easy do demonstrate compassion with other peoples resources, pariticularly if the government can be used as an itermediary to compel surrender of those resources, most people would prefer to make their own choices regarding how and to whom they provide charitable assistance.

Having said that, most people recognize a sociatal obligation to make available the first tier of goods in Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs to any who can not provide them for themselves. These goods must be obtained somehow and distributed according to somesort of acceptable formula. When all other support structures have failed (individual effort, family, local NGOs, etc) to meet thses needs, it does seem appropriate for govenment to step in as the provider of last resort. In doing so government should first seek to do no harm, extracting the minimium resources from tax or rate payers necessary to provide basic needs and doing so in a way that neither encourages freeriders nor compels unwilling participation. The most effective means of achiveng these goals contiues to be the subject of much debate.

I concur with your judgement that the current health care law meets none of them. Personally, I would prefer a system whereby subsidies were provided according to a needs based formula for low income individuals and families to purchase health care insurance on the open market. Individuals with the financial means to obtain health insurance on their own or through their employer should be free to do so or not as they choose. However, individuals regardless of income who choose not to obtain insurance using a subsidy, through their employer or with thier own assets and later seek financial assistance from the government for health care expenses should be required to repay that assistance through payroll or retirement benefit deductions prior to repayment of all other debts and subject to a government lien against all of their assets. While no one would be absolutely required to purchase health insurance against their will; The availability of low income subsidies and the impact of government healthcare loan repayment regulations on the credit scores of the uninsured should be sufficient to minimize freeriders. Essentially, the government would provide the resources necessary for those with low incomes to obtain health insurance. The credit rating ageniceis would provide the motivation to do so. Individuals and families would remain free to make thier own choices. The carrots and sticks which are a natural part of almost all meaningful decisions would come not from compulsary particiapation requirements but from individual judgements reagarding the value of a good credit score and the desire to protect assests earned over a lifetime from loss due to unforeseen medical expenses.