Quote:
Quote by: Gods_Mercenary  Techno, have you explained why you want to use a system in which the recipient of the aid defines need? All this allows you to do is to steal from your neighbors for your own healthcare. At least some objectivity would seem to be in order, even in a system like this. |
I was pointing out some of the drawbacks that I saw in the program.
The fact that the federal government does not view that having a car is mandatory in this area of the country would diss-qualify me from affording health care insurance, unless I gave up having a car and those related transportation expendatures (up-keep of car and gas).
Right now I have medicare insurance which I did not request but I did use it once when a I got bit by a stray cat and my hand looked like a baloon. However at my age I should be insured.
Under the proposed plan health care insurance would not be "welfare aid" it would be a "human right". I would pay into the pot like everyone else at a rate that fits my family budget. I do have the right to keep my current medicare insurance and not to sign up for the better insurance that the Hillary plan offers. But if I must get rid of my lease car and walk everywhere, to pay for that insurance on a mandatory bases, then that is wrong.
Why? Why should I have to make more cuts in my family budget to include another mandatory expendature? So I would not personally be defining what I can afford, my family budget, as it now stands intact, would define what I can afford to pay.
Here is how the government normally works. You might qualify for some discount. When you fill out the application for that madatory insurance you list your income, what you pay for monthy for your house, you supply samples of your utility bills, phone bill, and for a monthy supply of food. The "basics". They determine what you can be allowed for cheap public transportation, any expense over that is luxury. I am saying that buying gasoline for private use in your own car is a luxury item in the eyes of the feds because they feel it is up to the state to provide affordable public transportation. If I must add insurance payments to my current budget I could not afford to buy gasoline anymore. Forcing me to walk.
You say, if I define my family budget as including what it costs for gasoline for the family car then I am stealing from other people via the mandatory health insurance. In other words I would have to downsize my family budget to include the extra cost for heath care insurance or else I am stealing form other people to pay for my gasoline costs because in the eyes of the federal government I can survive without a private car.
That is wrong in my viewpoint because I define having use of a private car mandatory to my way of life, they do not. What gives the federal government the right to define what my family budget should include?
I ask you what would give them that right and it is mandatory insurance payments overviewed by the goverment.
That is my main objection.