[stcredzero]

they just don't want to pay for it. This is a perfectly valid reason, but I wouldn't call it encroaching on personal freedom, so I'm curious as to how else you see it affecting liberty?

For one thing, why are you so insistent that I'm an opponent of health care reform. (Subjectively speaking, there's this sour stickyness of you assuming things inside my head around that. If you are, please, don't. You would be wasting our time and energy with that.) I voted for Obama the 1st time in large part because of health care reform. That said, I've since changed my mind. The individual mandate in Obamacare is too big an encroachment on individual freedom.

Big government agencies tend to encroach on individual freedom because they tend to accrue de facto then de jure power. Would anyone dispute that the IRS has considerable power, enough to create some potential for abuse? (Not saying we should get rid of them, however.)

As far as individual freedom goes generally, watching the events of the past several years, including those around "activists," and big tech companies, has made me a lot more concerned about individual freedom. A lot of people seem to be paying lip service to concepts like Freedom of Speech and Due Process, but then putting wide ranging things into effect which interfere with or abrogate those rights, though they are not technically illegal. (yet)

[ncallaway]

> For one thing, why are you so insistent that I'm an opponent of health care reform

I think the assumptions others may have made because you've largely described what you don't want.

Do you have suggestions or thoughts for what an effective system is? What is the system that you do want?

[stcredzero]

I'd like for people on both sides of the aisle to come together and design a system which tries to prioritize both dignified almost-total coverage and individual autonomy. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but thanks for asking the question. I think I've clarified to myself how I'm to vote.

[monocasa]

Obamacare was both sides of the aisle coming together. It's a repackaged version of the proposed Republican 1993 HEART Act (including the individual mandate).

[jonfw]

What? Obamacare didn't receive a single republican vote

[germinalphrase]

True - but that is completely independent from the fact that the ACA was the Republican healthcare reform model (see Romneycare). The Republican Party went completely at war against President Obama regardless of whether or not he was proposing solutions they explicitly supported (in the past) or actively designed.

[CydeWeys]

You keep talking about personal freedom and autonomy. How exactly are you using those in a healthcare context? No one has ever proposed a system that forces adults into getting treatment against their will.

Are you instead talking about being forced to pay for a healthcare system, either directly or indirectly through taxes? Because in that case, then yeah, obviously it would need to be paid for. The alternative is not having it at all. And we already don't have a system where people who can't afford healthcare are denied treatment and forced to die, and such a system is untenable according to our modern society's morals anyway.

I agree with the others; you're using wishy-washy words without clarifying exactly what you're proposing, or even explaining how alternatives to the existing types of systems are possible at all.

[specialist]

Our respective positions have almost zero overlap, but I appreciate that you've articulated and shared yours.

I have and continue to spend a lot of time on healthcare. Despite 15 years of grinding, I feel like I barely understand what's going, and am continually surprised. For example, I totally didn't foresee hospital consolidation tipping the balance of power back to them (from insurers), begetting the scourge of surprise billing.

The best, and perhaps only, label for our current system is confusopoly (h/t Scott Adams).

In your travels, all that I ask, given your desire for bipartisan bonhomie, is while you read reform proposals (from policy wonks), please note who is participating in the conversation, and who isn't.