What freedoms will you lose if Obama's healthcare plan is passed?

Favorite Answer

*Here is a classical liberal view

1) You will legally be required to have health insurance - like car insurance. Imagine a police officer asking to see your proof of health insurance with your car insurance. Or perhaps a new national id containing information of both.

2) Private companies can not compete with government, government can tax you with threat of fine, imprisonment, or swat teams. private companies can not do this.

3) Government does not care about losses. They simple 'charge the people' via debt. Efficiency is NOT rewarded, inefficiency is awarded with a higher budget. The is the exact opposite of the free market.

4) Free markets regulate scarce resources with prices. If resources are low, prices go higher, and a signal is sent to find cheaper method and invite new competition. Government lacks this mechanism.

5) Massive medical databases are dangerous. Government databases are always compromised. My medical data is private between by doctor and myself. Keeping that information on file in my home and the doctor office keeps it secure compared to putting it online, available to not only millions of government workers, but millions of hackers.

----------------
"Being required to have something that you know you should have isn't an infringement at all."

You know you should have 8 hours of sleep. You know you should have healthy food. You know you should have a savings, and a good job, and a honest wife and kind, smart children. These are things you do voluntary.

Government FORCE is just that....FORCE. At the end, if you oppose governments force, and keep opposing, it has the power to murder you funded by your own stolen wealth.

Be consistent. Make a list of things that "you know you should have", which you would NOT want govenrment forcing. You will find many, and may rethink your reasoning.

-------------
"We do not lose substantive freedom when private companies go under?"

If you are not involved with a company, you do not lose. I don't lose any freedom if your video store fails. What I do lose, is what government is willing to steal from me, with threat of violence, to fund your failed company.

Actually, if a private company fails, it frees up resources being wasted on that private company. It is an indicator of what works, and what doesn't. It is a indicator to new businesses and entrepreneurs and investors.

"[With a government run service] we actually gain freedom."

Impossible. Its failure or success is funded no matter what, with theft of wealth and threat of violence. It lacks any mechanism to regulate resource use and manage costs. It feeds off inefficiency. Read what I wrote earlier.

"You harm others when you are not well and cost the country and your risk pool members extra money."

While I agree we should not harm others - person or property - theoretical harm is another endless excuse for govenrment regulation. We could spend the rest of our lives coming up with tens of thousands of theoretical ways people could become unwell and harm others. Ban cheeseburgers. Ban cigarettes. Ban toothpicks which could cause gum penetration and infection. Ban loud music, which could burst eardrums. Ban bright LCD TVs which may harm ones eyes.

"Individual freedom is limited when one is not well."

Government limiting freedom is the ultimate crime. Because if you attempt to get it back, SWAT teams will be at your door. If a person attempts to take your freedom, government - its primary duty - will be your friend for once providing a court system to help resolve the problem.

"Healthcare should be a commodity that there is enough of."

I agree. Government has been deep in health care for 40 years. Its regulation prevents new doctors and new life saving medicines from ever reaching it to market. The FDA is a billion dollar gate keeper that benefits big Pharma - government protected monopolies.

"Thus, scarcity pricing becomes less important."

If there is no price gains when something becomes scarce, how do you know those scarce resources are going to who needs them most?

"evidence of a gross market failure."

Regulation of medical schools, clinics, hospitals, the FDA, are not part of a free market. If the industry was completely deregulated, we would have more affordable medical solutions than we could throw money at.

--------------

"The scarcity of doctors is not an argument against healthcare reform, but for healthcare reform. We need to train more doctors."

I agree we need healthcare reform, but a different type.

First off, doctors wont magically appear with govenrment force funded health care. With the strict regulation on medical schools, and clinics, and hospitals, and the steep government insurance requirements on them, doctors wont fall out of the sky. Even the most minimal job in this environment requires massive government oversight. Perhaps there are dozens of hospital roles that a simple 12 hour class could teach someone....It is government forbidding that. It is government preventing affordable medical care.

Demand is always up there for doctors, it is government who has prevented that demand from being filled.

"making health insurance cheaper adds to our freedom."
I don't know if it adds to freedom, but lower costs for the citizens are a great idea. However, costs aren't reduced if the expenses are simply shifted to monetary inflation and debt. The costs are switched over to a hidden format. Cost reduction and illusion are not the same thing.

If you are interested, read this short 4 point article about the type of medical reform I would support. It would lower prices, and lead to new medical solutions. All voluntary, none using force of law and threat of violence. http://mises.org/story/3643...Show more

Here are a few thoughts I have. Medicare and Medicaid are creations of our Congress, and the programs are funded and administered by our Government. Medicare is cited as the program a half trillion dollars can be drawn from to finance Public Insurance, or subsidies for the low income citizens. These funds are considered available because their expenditures are on waste. We are asked to accept that a Public Insurance program will be administered by the same Agencies and Bureaucrats administering Medicare. Logic dictates the same Government that apparently mismanaged Medicare will be administering Public Insurance. US general funds will be required to finance another half trillion, and we all know that comes from tax revenues, otherwise it will be deficit financed. Let's all keep in mind these dollar amounts are for the first 10 years of the program. Something that I haven't heard from any source, when the Administration talks about mandating insurance for everyone, the costs for coverage doesn't take in consideration of the working population also paying Medicare taxes from their paychecks each payday. This will mostly impact those of the 30 million who have no insurance at present. The threshold for subsidizing new insurance hasn't been determined, and in doing so, the Medicare tax has to be considered. Bottom line, costs of a Health care program are not presented honestly, perhaps because it is really not known. We need all questions answered, and that may be impossible with this President and this Congress....Show more

"Being required to have something that you know you should have isn't an infringement at all."
Are you serious?!!!!!!!!
OK, let me use your brilliant logic!
There were (and are) many studies proving that areas (towns and counties) with heavy civilian gun ownership have severely less crime - robberies, carjacking, murders.
I say everyone should be required by law to own and be able to operate a gun.
If you don't and someone breaks into your house, your neighbor will have to pick up the slack. If he doesn't and your house gets robbed and/or someone in your house gets murdered, the value of all the houses in your neighborhood goes down.
So owning a gun is "Something you should do in order to avoid harming others."
Screw liberty, right? Just go buy gun and learn to use it or we'll tax you for non-compliance!!!!!!!...Show more

All the reasons mentioned by the 1st poster. So after 15-20 years you will essentially only have 1 choice due to unfair competition.

There is no way to fund it. The GAO agrees.

Previous performance of Medicare. There is massive fraud I mean insane amounts of fraud. Also its short funded by 50+ Trillion and will not have any money to operate in around 9 years.

The same thing will happen with this government plan. When medicare was sold to the public everything was "paid for" now its trillions in debt.

And quite frankly we dont need this massive plan. We can simply add a few regulations and make some tweaks to promote competition without reinventing the wheel.


>The amount of false statements I see in these answers is very troubling. People need to stop listening to FOX and Limbaugh and actually read the bill.

Name them....Show more

I will have the freedom to change insurance companies regardless of preexisting conditions. I will have the freedom to continue being insured even if I change jobs....Show more