Posted by machine_easy2 on October 10, 2013, 12:46 pm, in reply to "Re: ObamaScare"
When you say the government only added regulation where it was necessary, How do you take into account that the bill is more than 2 million words? Thats almost 4 as many words as Atlas Shrugged.
I don't think anybody but trial lawyers would have a problem with tort reform, nor would it would not have bothered me if congress used it's powers under the interstate commerce clause, to allow the sale of insurance across state lines. If the bill did those two things alone, (it does neither) health insurance might be cheeper today, rather than doubling in price since the bills signing.
But instead of sensible reform, we got a draconian monstrosity. The idea than any government can force someone to purchase a product they don't want (or need) regardless of the ability to afford it, is appalling.
Changing the definition of insurance from 'a prepaid protection against catastrophic events' to 'buy it when you need, and get routine maintenance thrown in for free.' Is not a good idea.
The amount of bureaucratic red tape the law has imposed on doctors and employers, coupled with the increased cost of insurance [mandates] largely due to the stated redefinition is crippling the economy.
To restate what I believe OP was saying; It should not be the responsibility of a society to provide for it's people. It's should be the responsibility of the people of a society to care for themselves. In the former, everybody shares an equally in misery, in the latter, some might be miserable, but most are not.
There are people out there who can't provide for themselves, but most of the people in living in 'poverty' (a condition that is almost non-existant in this country) are there as a result of their own bad judgment. It is not fair to make those who have had better judgment pay for their mistakes.
You can't engineer a successful society. You can only allow a society to as free as possible, in the hopes that prosperity will follow.