An Uninsured Woman Opposes The Insurance Mandate
But I will say this: I am someone who would, theoretically, see an immediate personal benefit if the Supremes pass the individual mandate, yet I still oppose it.
Ever since my partner lost his job, I have been sans health insurance. (Well, actually, I bought a so-called short-term emergency insurance policy, but it's largely useless. The insurance I have now is the kind where, instead of selling my soul to pay for medical care, I'd only have to sell 20 percent of my soul, after paying a $5,000 deductible every six months, and then the insurance company will pay 80 percent of the costs beyond that. This will prove useful if I get an injury or illness costing "only" $50,000 or $100,000 to treat -- I could manage 20 percent of that without bankruptcy -- but if I come down with something really expensive, my medical insurance will leave me just as bankrupt as someone with no insurance at all.)
I lack decent health insurance. I can't afford decent health insurance. If the government offered a subsidized insurance policy WITHOUT my becoming a single mother first, I'd sign up in a heartbeat. And I still hope the individual mandate is struck down.
If the mandate passes, then for the first time in American history, everybody who lives here will have the legal obligation to pay money to the CEO of a private company with excellent political connections, no matter what. The simple fact "you exist" will be all it takes to incur this obligation. That's not true for any prior tax -- you personally are not obligated to pay income tax unless you have an income above a certain level. You personally do not owe property tax unless you own property. Every other tax or fine has that "unless" clause -- you do not owe tax X unless you do activity Y first. But what is the "unless" clause for the individual mandate? "Unless you ... exist? live? Draw breath?"
The American healthcare system is broken and needs fixing, but I still oppose the unconstitutional idea "I am required by law to give money to the CEO of a private company with cushy political connections." Even worse: I don't think the individual-mandate proponents truly understand (or care) how punitive and downright cruel America's legal system is. Because if they understood or cared, they would NOT be so eager to give that system yet ANOTHER excuse to prosecute people.
Consider the hundreds of thousands of inmates who are beaten and raped in American prisons after being convicted of nonviolent drug or prostitution charges -- and remember that, in theory, those inmates were locked in cages for their own good, to protect them from the life-destroying scourge of being a drug user or prostitute. TSA molests or irradiates American travelers for their own good. And the "give money to a corporate CEO under penalty of law" insurance mandate is for our own good.
I'm sure the federal bureaucracy charged with enforcing compliance will act with all the humanity and compassion that has made the American government so beloved throughout the world these past ten years and more, right? The compassion and humanity of the DEA and the TSA and the remote-control drone operators who use Afghan infants for target practice ... yes, of course, the American government has proven itself so utterly trustworthy in wielding power, why NOT give it even more power? Why not give it more excuses to punish Americans under the law? After all, it's for our own good.
No, hell no, I don't trust that at all. I don't trust anything that gives the government a justification to hand still more Americans over to the nonexistent mercies of our "justice" system. I lack insurance, I need insurance, and I still say I am NOT acting against my best interests when I oppose the bill; I'm putting my long-term interests over my short-term. If Americans can be forced to give money to private companies that will set an appalling precedent, and I'm not willing to sell out future generations no matter how much I'd benefit now for doing so.