Frist Endorses Individual Mandate in Healthcare Reform

Reader Comments
Back to blog

TTNewton of AK: "That's the Forest Obama is leading us all into, and people like you are cheering the train. Your villains are anyone who works hard to better his life and the lives of his family, if he resents you attaching yourself like a leach to his sweaty back."
You know not of whom you speak. RL Schaefer is a regular on these boards and that isn't even close to an accurate description. Schaefer is one of the posters who I respect, even when I disagree. Same goes for Muser (with whom I disagree more often than not.) You owe an apology for your mischaracterization.
John Galt is the main character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Just FYI.
However, I agree with you that forced charity is not charity at all - it's theft. The individual mandate is completely unconstitutional coming from the Feds, so at this point it's just a big stick to threaten while they try to slip in mandatory Health Savings Accounts (HSA).
If they get HSAs, they'll use the funds coercively collected to shore up Social Security to keep the Boomers happy, fed and voting until they die (maybe even voting after.) Then the HSA program will be as broke as Social Security. The goal isn't to fix anything or serve anyone - it's to keep the merry-go-round spinning as long as possible.
But one day, the music will stop, and someone will be left without a chair.

Rich of CO 5:30PM October 01, 2009

It's too bad the U.S. will lose this opportunity for health care reform. In infant mortality, child mortality and longevity, the U.S. looks like a 3rd world country compared to the Europeans and Canadians. I haven't seen any notable measure of disatisfaction by these countries citizens - quite the contrary.
That wouldn't be so embarrassing except for the fact that we have by far the most expensive health care in the world.
But the Republicans won't vote for anything suggested by a Democrat as a matter of principle. And so far, that has been a winning strategy for them politically.

BillInStl of MO 2:14PM September 30, 2009

I never said in my posts below that I thought it necessary that YOU have to believe that universal health care is a moral issue. If you don't, that's OK. What's necessary (eventually) for the soul and economic well-being of America is that a sufficient majority for passage so believes.

Muser of NM 2:05PM September 29, 2009

A good example of how the Mandatory health insurance is working. Look at Massachusetts, who already have it. Where did you say the people were from that Kennedy represented and who sponsored this bill?

Ken Hartley of OH 12:33PM September 29, 2009

Great! The let's remove Frist's senate retirement check and his health insurance that he has received from the government and place him on a plan that he pays for. Let him assume his responsibilities just like the normal working person's do. No more government handout of retirements or free healthcare to persons who serve less than 30 years in the government. We can't afford to pay for these persons retirement or healthcare any longer.

Ken Hartley of OH 12:22PM September 29, 2009

Who cares what the RINO's and the Democrat (Socialist) party thinks? There is a reason why these idiots are going to be thrown out of office in the next elections. This country was predicated upon the notion of freedom and liberty for all. Not some group who think the golden rule is I have the gold so I make the rules.

Jeff of WI 7:29AM September 29, 2009

You wrote: "America would be moving to a single-payer system with everyone covered and everyone paying in to support it via both taxes and premiums." and "I do believe that covering everyone is a moral issue."
So, you absolve anyone and everyone of their individual duty and responsibility of providing their own health care coverage. Great . . . Then I'd like to be absolved from the responsiblity of having to pay for my neighbor's health coverage as well.
Here's the problem. Like every other government entitlement program, it's always going to be a day late, dollar short, and lack the services people want and need.
Everyone clambering for "Free" Socialized Medicine will be in for a very rude awakening. The program will be like swiss cheese so full of holes that everyone is led to believe they qualify only to find that, in reality, few people actually meet the criteria to get any substantial benefit. Look at SSA and VA for example.
People are delusional if they think a government sponsored health care program will give them anything substantial.
Let's be real. Here's an example: Stage IV diagnosed Brain Cancer. Option 1: Put a drain on the system for several hundred thousand dollars of brain surgery, chemo, radiation, etc, or Option 2: Fit you for a casket worth $2000 that you and the government know you are going to fill in 18 months anyway.
The government will take the casket option everyday of the week.
If you believe otherwise, your delusional. If the government won't think twice about putting potential wage earning, healthy 20 year old, young men in front of bullets they won't think twice about a pine box option for terminally ill patients, especially if you've given away your freedom of choice.

David of ID 3:31PM September 28, 2009

Well, if you had hopes of spending some time as a bum, your last and only freedom left, forget about it.

J of CA 11:25PM September 27, 2009

>>> [... I suspect the John Galt in you would disappear pretty fast if a disease left you disabled and your family was starving. So give the Ann Rand crap a rest. She was an empty headed, angry atheist who figured that greed was always good and that charity was always bad.]
R.L., I think real charity can be a good thing, and am pretty confident I and my family do a whole lot more of it than the average socialist. But socialism is only charity if you live in a distorted Sherwood Forest fantasy, where members of the class possessing what you want are portrayed as villainous thieves, thereby easing the conscience of those who rob them. That's the Forest Obama is leading us all into, and people like you are cheering the train. Your villains are anyone who works hard to better his life and the lives of his family, if he resents you attaching yourself like a leach to his sweaty back. It matters not to you whether he makes the entire world a better place to live in the process of winning his livelihood. It's not relevant to you that he may not be one of the criminal scofflaws rightly condemned by all who've ever been scammed or cheated. No, your sole criteria for villainy is that he has something you want, and is reluctant to see you and your band of thieves drag it away and then burn what's left.
Quite literally, the threat of illness and being in want drive much of my own activity. Figuring out how I will provide for my and my family's needs well into the future are hardly ever more than a breath away from anything I do or think. But I don't think my neighborhood, country, or entire world are worse off for the very practical outcomes of my concern. In fact, people from around the world have told me in no uncertain terms that they value my contributions.
If I became helpless to myself and my family, there is no doubt I would struggle against despair. The difference between me and socialists such as yourself is that - while I can - I work hard to avoid that desperate outcome, while you lobby to hasten it for me, so you can self-righteously enjoy the spoils of plundering my household.
PS: I've never read Ayn Rand - though I know of her. I don't know who John Galt is, though maybe I should, if you hate him. Is it possible I speak from my own convictions and personal experiences, and that they resemble the convictions and personal experiences of others? Is it possible I'm too busy working to be as well-read as you?

ttnewton of AK 2:54PM September 27, 2009

I read "Atlas Shrugged" too... It just didn't make me crazy.
You're a theoretical Libertarian. However, I suspect the John Galt in you would disappear pretty fast if a disease left you disabled and your family was starving. So give the Ann Rand crap a rest. She was an empty headed, angry atheist who figured that greed was always good and that charity was always bad.
The libertarian purist is just as much a dunderhead as the egalitarian redistributionist. The pendulum of civilization needs to hover between these poles.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 10:07PM September 26, 2009