Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
If someone doesn't want to participate in a market they should have the freedom to do, no matter what it costs anyone else. Otherwise, it's fascism.
I couldn't afford healthcare when I first got out of college and went without for about 3 years. Then got it by joining the national association for the self-employed which made it affordable. Around the later part of the '90s I dropped it due to rising premiums, for a temporary period. Instead it lasted for 7 years and I had a young child during that period. It was risky but I refused to play the game. Then got some via my spouse's employment when they added it, but even those premiums continually rose. So I called insurance as we moved around to different policies which promised premiums would not rise that much. Their answer to when they did rise, was the govt kept adding mandates and they had to pass on the costs. If I recall correctly, there was also something going on with phasing out PPOs in favor of HMOs, but I can't recall the specifics exactly.
As people have already noted though, everyone participates in our healthcare system by definition. It's just that some people are getting free, albeit barebones, catastrophic insurance while everyone else is paying for it.
I'm not going to call these people leechers, because they're just playing by the current rules of the game, but there is a percentage of them who would buy (at least catastrophic) insurance if they knew that going without coverage would mean no care at all in the event of an unforeseen accident. In theory at least, bringing those people into the system is no different than forcing people to pay for the local fire department through the tax system.
"[The democrat party] has become a left wing party, that's anti-American, and thatís racist." - David Horowitz