No, of course not. You'll still be treated, after you're treated you'll just actually have to pay for treatment. A hospital is obliged to treat everybody; but in a fair world, like the pre-Obamacare world (which was not perfect but still good) everybody would afterwards have to pay for said treatment.
Except they don't. Millions of people receive (extremely costly) treatment at hospitals and never pay their bills. So, we're already
paying for them. Which is why the individual mandate was originally a conservative idea.
Then don't force everyone to pay into a program because a select few refuse to pay their bills. We all don't face tax evasion charges just because John Q. Smith doesn't pay his taxes.
A trip to the ER can easily cost you more than a luxury car (not hyperbole, you can check it out yourself). It's not that they refuse to pay, they are just unable to pay. And anyone who can afford that bill already has insurance so they don't need to worry about it. And insurance companies get deep, deep discounts on the sticker price of those procedures. Individuals do not. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean we need to force individuals to purchase insurance, just make sure they have the ability to regardless of their income or station in life. We just need to make sure that the freeloaders then don't get medical care.
Also the individual mandate is a Republican idea, and was supported by Republicans as late as 2008-2009. They just saw it's unpopularity, changed their position and started attacking Democrats for it. The Democrats are fools, they should have B-slapped the Republicans and pushed through a public option. Then again the Democratic party is also owned by the insurance companies so maybe not......
If you're unable to have insurance and you're unable to pay your hospital bills (actually, if the former is true, the latter must be true) then the fair option for the hospital and for the general population is to have you be in debt. It sucks if you are that person, of course, but the majority of Americans and the actual hospital workers will have more money.
But, see, I don't want to pay for Julia. I want to pay for myself, for my family, and for no one else. I don't want to be dependent on the government, particularly on a system like this that is bound to become inefficient and corrupt, and will only increase our debt and make the deficit worse. I don't want that, and I don't think most Americans do. It reeks of 'welfare state'.
Fine, then you can't use the freeways, public transportation, public education, public libraries, the fire department, or the police. You're on your own. A public system easily becomes inefficient when taxes are decreased, because there is less money to provide those services. It also will obviously become inefficient when certain sections of public services are eliminated.
The difference between most of the things you listed and health-care is that public transportation and the fire department and the police are designed to be shared by the community, but you can't share health-care. What I need for my condition does not equal what you need for your condition.
I can understand the traditional conservative position, which is to "conserve" the way things are, while liberals enact change. But the current conservative position, which is really "reversing" the change is an oxymoron. Conservative politicians take office claiming the government can't solve problems, and then when they get into office they decrease taxes or reduce services to create the government's inefficiency. It's an endless cycle of politicians distrusting the government, gaining office to debilitate the government, and then blaming the government's inefficiency to keep in office.
Well, the point of decreasing taxes is that because of that services will be cut. But because of left-wing opposition, instead of being cut they are crippled, so that they don't do anything but continue to exist, inefficiently. Both parties can play this sort of game, because both are to blame. You are right to an extent, though.
It's like a group of people are deciding to fix a man's house, and that man is claiming that they can't do it and he can do it himself. And then that person sabotages the group's effort, and when there is a cascade of greater problems, the guy says "See, I told you it wouldn't work."
It's the same reason why I am always of suspicious of upcoming politicians who have no history of working in government, only in the private sector, who claim that they are better qualified that an "experienced" politician.
This is a quote I took from an earlier posting of mine:http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=150061.msg3217915#msg3217915
1. I cannot think of any other profession where a limited amount of experience is seen an advantage. Romney's message is basically this: "I am best qualified to be President, because I have a limited amount of experience in government."
It's like a game of mad libs: "I am best qualified to be a (position), because I have a limited amount of experience in (position's field)."
I can't imagine this working: "I am best qualified to be a surgeon, because I have a limited amount of experience in physiology."
There is a logic to it. Somebody who has spent their lives in business understands how to spend money wisely. Surely a doctor would have better ideas about health-care reform than a 20-term Congressman, even though it is a political issue. Government does so many things that experts from many fields should be part of government.