Either way, it is a tax. I don't really like the slippery slope ramifications either, but it is still a tax. I see it no different than a fine for not having car insurance.
The best way around this issues, though, would be single payer.
Sorry, but it's not. The whole concept of "sin taxes" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax ) is to increase the price of undesirable behaviors (smoking and alcohol being the most common examples) AND to make money from addictive behaviors. Don't want to pay the mark-up on cigarettes? Don't buy them. It is a tax based on a purchase.
If the individual mandate penalty is a tax, as you propose, then it is levied if you DON'T purchase something. Totally opposite of what a sin tax is and the "broccoli argument" pretty much illustrates how it is an overreach by the government. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument, but if the government can attempt to force us to buy health insurance through taxation for our own good, can they force us to buy a gym membership or get taxed? "Ah....you only checked in to your gym once last week and according to the logs, you only spent 20 minutes on the treadmill instead of the Cardiovascular Health Mandate required 45 minutes. That will be $25. It has automatically been deducted from your account." Where does it stop?
I can appreciate the motivation to try to help the uninsured and to improve the health of the less fortunate; it's a good cause. But, granting the federal government that much power over us isn't the way to do it. We were founded as a country based on freedom and I'm afraid the chipping away of those will lead to serious, serious consequences in the future [/tinfoil hat].
Either way, it is a tax. I don't really like the slippery slope ramifications either, but it is still a tax. I see it no different than a fine for not having car insurance.
The best way around this issues, though, would be single payer.
You put more faith in the government than I do if you want single payer. Want your healthcare handled by the post office? Removing a gall bladder is a little more complicated than mailing a letter and look at the waste, inefficiency, long lines, apathy, etc. that comes from the post office. How much worse would it be in a government run hospital system? Take the V.A. as an example...that mess is what federal bureaucracy run health care gets you. No, it's not perfect now, nor was it prior to the ACA, but giving Washington more control isn't the answer.
Either way, I'm glad we're both concerned about the slippery slope; it's a principle and not just an issue. Yeah, it's debatable about whether or not we will slide into a situation like that, I hope that if the day ever comes that it becomes a problem, the left and right can unite to stop it.
Sorry, but it's not. The whole concept of "sin taxes" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax ) is to increase the price of undesirable behaviors (smoking and alcohol being the most common examples) AND to make money from addictive behaviors. Don't want to pay the mark-up on cigarettes? Don't buy them. It is a tax based on a purchase.
If the individual mandate penalty is a tax, as you propose, then it is levied if you DON'T purchase something. Totally opposite of what a sin tax is and the "broccoli argument" pretty much illustrates how it is an overreach by the government. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument, but if the government can attempt to force us to buy health insurance through taxation for our own good, can they force us to buy a gym membership or get taxed? "Ah....you only checked in to your gym once last week and according to the logs, you only spent 20 minutes on the treadmill instead of the Cardiovascular Health Mandate required 45 minutes. That will be $25. It has automatically been deducted from your account." Where does it stop?
I can appreciate the motivation to try to help the uninsured and to improve the health of the less fortunate; it's a good cause. But, granting the federal government that much power over us isn't the way to do it. We were founded as a country based on freedom and I'm afraid the chipping away of those will lead to serious, serious consequences in the future [/tinfoil hat].
You put more faith in the government than I do if you want single payer. Want your healthcare handled by the post office? Removing a gall bladder is a little more complicated than mailing a letter and look at the waste, inefficiency, long lines, apathy, etc. that comes from the post office. How much worse would it be in a government run hospital system? Take the V.A. as an example...that mess is what federal bureaucracy run health care gets you. No, it's not perfect now, nor was it prior to the ACA, but giving Washington more control isn't the answer.
Either way, I'm glad we're both concerned about the slippery slope; it's a principle and not just an issue. Yeah, it's debatable about whether or not we will slide into a situation like that, I hope that if the day ever comes that it becomes a problem, the left and right can unite to stop it.
You put faith in the government to maintain the largest road infrastructure in the world, the most advanced space program in the world, the most complex military in the world, and give birth to more inventions that I care to count (to include the goddamned internet you're using right now), but you're concerned about their ability to take money from people via a tax and give it to hospitals in an orderly fashion? Where are you getting this notion from? In what country do you live, exactly?You put more faith in the government than I do if you want single payer.
Just about every single other developed country in the world is doing fine with single payer systems-people get better delivery of medical services at a hugely cheaper cost and have more longevity. If we could get a single payer system that the GOP didn't spend every last bit of their effort trying to wreck (to prove that the government can run anything) we'd be way better off. As far as the government making healthcare decisions as opposed to huge for-profit insurance companies (which the GOP will drop regulation on to make them supposedly more competitive) give me the government any day of the week.
I stand by what I've said here many times before: abolish the employers' ability to deduct health care expenses so there is no incentive for employer provided insurance, abolish government employee health insurance and phase back military health insurance to active duty and disabled vets. That way a huge chunk of the country will feel the pain we self-employed do. If that happened I guarantee we'd have a good single payer system up and running within five years-probably for half the cost of what we pay now as a country.
If you look at it from that perspective, sure, but look at it from the purpose of the tax: influencing behavior. whether or not is through "purchasing the bad behavior" is irrelevant. If the tax is levied against the bad behavior, is what is important.
So, yes, you are still taxing/purchasing the bad behavior. Not having health insurance is very bad behavior (it means the cost to fix you is going to be disastrously higher for you, and there is no way around that--just like over-indulgence in cigs and booze)
well, that sounds like your problem, then. The rest of the developed world has figured this out. If conservatives weren't so addled by the previous decades of GOP thoughtspeak, this country would have managed to progress into fixing more complicated problems. But here we are, stuck on arguing a rather accepted truism that healthcare in our current age of modern medicine and technology is problem that has long been solved.
But not in the US...because we are jealous of countries like, I dunno, Qatar? lol--they probably have way better Healthcare than us. Oh, and slaves. They still employ slave labor.
You put faith in the government to maintain the largest road infrastructure in the world, the most advanced space program in the world, the most complex military in the world, and give birth to more inventions that I care to count (to include the goddamned internet you're using right now), but you're concerned about their ability to take money from people via a tax and give it to hospitals in an orderly fashion? Where are you getting this notion from? In what country do you live, exactly?
Well, the private sector has done such a stellar job with the healthcare system, why not just let them continue to exploit it? You specifically state that it needs to be fixed, but then go on to state that the only other entity which could (the government) should stay out of it, that makes no sense.I really don't put faith in them to do it correctly, no. Barring the fact that most roads in the US are managed by the states or municipalities, ever seen workers on a highway where 8 are standing around watching one guy work? It's a meme for a reason. That's not even getting into the crony capitalism and corruption that is rampant in the highway system.
Space system? Such a small part of the budget, but yeah, still a lot of inefficiency there. Ask yourself why Elon Musk and Space X are doing more amazing things with technology at a fraction of the cost spent by the feds. Is privatization the answer to everything? No, but there needs to be incentive in the federal government to be more efficient.
Military? Still a lot of wasteful spending, but breaking and killing is many, many times easier than healing...and the government screws up the former regularly. Internet? Are you calling for the government to take control of the internet and manage it? No, I wouldn't be for that, either. That being said, the private sector has come up with exponentially more inventions than the government, so that's not even a close comparison. I'm not an anarchist, so I recognize the government's job to set conditions in which it's citizens can operate and then get out of the way. There is a balance and I think we just disagree on what that balance should be.
Yes, I am questioning the federal government's ability to manage single payer healthcare. I live in the US where picking up an envelope, driving it across town, and dropping off said envelope can result in astronomical wait times, errors, and no accountability. Do I want a post office like system to schedule and perform an emergency appendectomy? No, and I really don't see why you would want them to.
Again, I just don't think we'll agree on this. You want the government to manage healthcare (not to put words in your mouth) and I don't think they can manage it well. Yes, I am extremely skeptical of any government's ability to run my life, but I recognize there are some things that they should be doing.
Well, the private sector has done such a stellar job with the healthcare system, why not just let them continue to exploit it? You specifically state that it needs to be fixed, but then go on to state that the only other entity which could (the government) should stay out of it, that makes no sense.
By the way, from your list:
Roads: Those guys standing around are contracted, probably by the hour. Private sector.
Space: Yep, inefficient, mostly by design from congresscritters. Still doesn't change the fact that private orgs would NOT have done the R&D to make it happen.
Military: Yep, lots of wasteful spending, find a way to make it cheaper, and the govt will pay you big cash.
Post office is accountable if you pay for accountable shipping. Cheap shit is for garbage mail. Pay for tracking.