Well, that's a good point - there are laws that require you to have certain things - but you're not required to buy clothes - if you had the means, you'd be fine wearing clothes you made yourself for free, hand-me-downs, etc. Also, the law doesn't care what you wear in private places, assuming it's ok with the property owner - you can go naked at home just fine. Contrast this with saying, "I'm not going to buy insurance, I'll just pay for my own medical care out of pocket when I need it." Are there similar exceptions in the health care law (such as for sufficient means i.e. wealth), or is it truly universal - everyone must buy?
Similarly, the law prohibits homelessness but not living with someone else for free. You aren't legally required to pay rent.
IMO, the only fair way to do socialized medicine is simply to say that it's "free": if you need treatment, you go to the doctor/hospital and get it. The costs of care will be spread equally (or whatever) by taxation. This is basically what health insurance is supposed to do - spread out the costs, so each payer is essentially paying the average cost. Unfortunately, this is IMO more prone to waste and abuse than a free market for insurance, with tight regulation on the practice of medicine.
The problem in the US isn't the quality of health care - the actual practice of medicine in the US is not bad - it's about funding. But people need to accept that a free economy means people will have vastly different financial means to afford important things like medical care. Charities do a great deal to help close the gaps.
You can see it here. They even have an airfield, and the GMaps image captures a plane in the process of taxiing or landing. I wouldn't have guessed that many hippies owned aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's a good point - there are laws that require you to have certain things - but you're not required to buy clothes - if you had the means, you'd be fine wearing clothes you made yourself for free, hand-me-downs, etc. Also, the law doesn't care what you wear in private places, assuming it's ok with the property owner - you can go naked at home just fine. Contrast this with saying, "I'm not going to buy insurance, I'll just pay for my own medical care out of pocket when I need it." Are there similar exceptions in the health care law (such as for sufficient means i.e. wealth), or is it truly universal - everyone must buy?
Similarly, the law prohibits homelessness but not living with someone else for free. You aren't legally required to pay rent.
IMO, the only fair way to do socialized medicine is simply to say that it's "free": if you need treatment, you go to the doctor/hospital and get it. The costs of care will be spread equally (or whatever) by taxation. This is basically what health insurance is supposed to do - spread out the costs, so each payer is essentially paying the average cost. Unfortunately, this is IMO more prone to waste and abuse than a free market for insurance, with tight regulation on the practice of medicine.
The problem in the US isn't the quality of health care - the actual practice of medicine in the US is not bad - it's about funding. But people need to accept that a free economy means people will have vastly different financial means to afford important things like medical care. Charities do a great deal to help close the gaps.
You can see it here. They even have an airfield, and the GMaps image captures a plane in the process of taxiing or landing. I wouldn't have guessed that many hippies owned aircraft.