As long as the rest of us don't have the right to let you die on the sidewalk outside the ER, no, I'm afraid you shouldn't have the right to choose not to participate.
If you want to go off the grid, you need to go ALL the way off the grid. Otherwise you're just another moocher.
This is a false dichotomy, which assumes that the only possible alternatives are Obamacare and no insurance at all.
Not to mention that the majority of people who do have Obamacare are getting subsidized by the government (i.e., they're "moochers", in your terminology).
How does making this public subsidy pass through more sets of pockets before it gets to the doctor make it any less "mooching"? Please be specific.
Also, what about the people with expensive preexisting conditions? Virtually all of those people are consuming far more resources than they will ever pay in. Are they also "moochers"?
Note that I'm not saying that those people shouldn't have health care. I'm just objecting to calling it "insurance", because it isn't. Insurance is a bet.
> This is a false dichotomy, which assumes that the only possible alternatives are Obamacare and no insurance at all.
No it isn't, the parent poster made no judgement about the system available, just that one must participate. What that system looks like is an entirely different debate to the "I should be able to not have insurance" debate.
> Also, what about the people with expensive preexisting conditions? Virtually all of those people are consuming far more resources than they will ever pay in. Are they also "moochers"?
That is the entire point of insurance. Some will pay more than they take and others will take more than they pay, but in the end, both sides of the ledger for the collective is balanced and both individuals had the same* access. *for some loose definition of same.
If you are allowed to buy "health insurance" after you are already sick, it's not "insurance" at all. Sorry, it just isn't.
Do you also think that you should be able to buy fire insurance after your house is already on fire, or car insurance after you've already had the accident?
Note again, and note well, that I'm not saying that people who are already sick should be abandoned. That is a real problem and one which should be addressed. I'm saying that bundling them into an "insurance" program makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes even less sense when you bundle them into Obamacare, the other users of which tend to be poor. I mean, they weren't able to afford insurance before... and now they're expected to not only cover their own costs, but the costs of all those with preexisting conditions? How did anyone expect that to work?
If you insist on funding the preexisting folks by charges on another risk pool, it probably should be done across the board (i.e., by charging the costs of the preexisting folks to all recipients of health insurance, not just the ones unfortunate enough to be stuck with Obamacare). That, at least, would have spread those costs over a much larger pool.
No, because at some point you will inevitable need care. We build care systems in place and pay into them to mitigate and distribute risk. You are effectively free-riding on everyone else's participation.
While I don't disagree in principle, this is impossible to enact. Consider the case where this person who has chosen not to have insurance is in a car accident and render incapable of communicating. Responders and those at the hospital must act under the assumption that the victim has insurance and do everything in their power to save them.
In this situation the person in the accident can later claim that they didn't want to be saved and thus owe nothing. We, that is the rest of us who participate, are then forced to carry this cost and they free ride.
You've now made this same point three times in this thread without expanding your argument. Please make each comment each add substantively to the discussion.
because i recognize the futility in expanding my argument which a philosophical one thats been going on for centuries. no ones going to change their minds. if you'd like my expanded argument you should start with 'the road to serfdom' by hayek but i wont attempt to summarize it for you here on HN.
It sounds like you do have something useful to contribute if you chose to do so. If you feel it's futile to contribute substantively, please refrain from doing so. Otherwise it's just noise and distracts from potentially useful discussion.
If you want to go off the grid, you need to go ALL the way off the grid. Otherwise you're just another moocher.