Is Universal Health Care taxation without representation?

Drew Blood: Is Universal Health Care taxation without representation?
What if I don’t want health insurance, nor do I want the Federal Govt to raise MY taxes to pay for a universal health care plan? Wouldn’t that be considered taxation without representation? The government FORCING higher taxes on me to pay for something I don’t want or use? How is that any different than England raising or creating taxes for English colonists living in the 13 colonies?

Answers and Views:

Answer by NicksFan
NO! it’s what this country needs to cover those who cannot afford it. Other people that have it “good” don’t realize or care to realize how bad a lot have it. That’s why I’m so glad we voted Obama in.

Answer by Julia Sugarbaker
No, you have representation.You vote for them in the election.

Answer by Richard
Agreed. It is taxation without representation.

Answer by Chris S
you have the government. You elected them. that’s your representation.

Don’t like it? march on washington

Answer by Wonder
You have representation. Your district voted for the person.

-MM

Answer by Gen. Stiggo (Atheati-in-Chief)
We have Congress, so we have representation. The colonies had no voice in Parliament. The difference is clear.

Answer by grandma zaza
Yes, of course. I certainly won’t get it. My kids didn’t even qualify for any college grants. We are not allowed the same exemptions as other citizens either. We are already being taxed without representation and have been for many years.

Taxation without representation is a situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting, OR when the taxation decision was made without a representative with their views being heard.

My representatives are NOT being heard, and new taxes are being imposed on me, but not on others, therefore I am not being represented.

Answer by LA_Chick
You have representation, it’s your Senator and Congress person.

Answer by g
everyone has SOMETHING that they don’t like that the gov. pays for…

but we can VOTE in our officals, THAT’S how it’s different…

Answer by Blue
Not unless me having to pay for the military is taxation without representation. I’m a Quaker. We’re pacifists.

Answer by Universal Aardvark
If you don’t like what your representatives are doing, encourage them to do something different. If they don’t cooperate, vote someone else in. If the majority around you disagrees with you… well, then you’re screwed.

So we can agree that 49% of the country is often disenfranchised. The question now is can you find a place where it is less than that?

Answer by Chupate esa!
No, that’s ridiculous you just lost the election…

So much for spreading democracy ah…?

Answer by jpayne1324
Universal health care is not in any bill. Sorry to burst your bubble. Good try!

Answer by Mr. Quarrelsome
It might be a dereliction of duty to constituents but it is not “without representation.”

Of course it all depends on how you feel about the issue.

If most want it and a few don’t then it is simply the tyranny of the majority.

Answer by Coop 366
Not a Christian too. We are to take care of the poor, that is what Jesus Christ said but the Christian Right don’t want to hear that.
EDIT.. What ever happened to majority rule! If congress vote for a tax increase is that not majority rule?

Answer by sly
Move to England and tell me after needing medical care that you disagree with the system. You mention no representation, Do you vote and research those that you vote for?

Answer by a2x4dc
No it is taxation by individuals that see themselves as slave owners of the taxpayer. The entitled feel they have the right to force others to pay for their comfort while they are unwilling to support themselves.

Answer by Anne S
No. We elect our representatives and by doing so have representation for the majority. Taxation without representation means that there would be no one to represent us at all, even if we personally agreed with the notion (action) or not- just as the colonist were denied any representation to the
Crown even when they were levied with taxes. When we live under a government under which we do have the freedom of election of representatives, we are agreeing to abide by the decisions those elected make until we can elect someone else to take their place. Because this nation is apathetic at the polls does not negate that. The colonist had no such option. Which is why they rebelled.

When someone becomes ill without any kind of health care coverage, as the situation exist today, the public (our tax dollars to city, county, state and federal) has to ‘carry’ that person to some extent -especially in emergencies. (Most states have laws that require anyone coming into an emergency room to be. treated, whether they are covered by insurance or can pay or not. Since a huge number of these people are not true emergencies, but only seeking what a family practitioner would treat, we are paying a lot of money to treat those with no insurance or money far above what a family doc would charge for the same treatment.) We do this because we are a people who have traditionally (and honorably, largely based on our Judo-Christian majority composite of this country) helped our neighbors. From the time of a mainly agrarian economy this has been true. When people gather together in communities, it has always been for mutual aide and protection. To opt out of either means leaving the community.
A public option was the only way to really have a ‘free market’ type competition with the health insurance industry. Handing them the plan for the government to demand everyone buy (even when doing so with government aide) is giving that for-profit industry not only the Golden Egg, but the Goose that lays them. Only since the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 (which gave that industry total immunity from anti-trust laws. allowing the price fixing and other practices) has that industry been handed such a wonderful thing for their profits! The health insurance industry and their lobbyist has been relentless with propaganda to scare people and give out distorted information or out right lies, spending millions of dollars a week to accomplish this aim to fight both a public option and any universal health care proposal. With the salaries and profits involved, one should be able to see why they have done so. Those in Congress whose re-elections depend on swelling campaign funds and who are largely aided by the health insurance donations, face losing office without those funds to campaign on. It is worth using the search engines on your computer to see who those in Congress are and when their next elect is and who is funding them.

If the health industry had been by-passed (eliminated completely)in the change in health care delivery legislation, leaving out the middle men of the for profit health insurance industry, and Medicare for all instead, it would have been not only cheaper but fairer for all Americans. The propaganda about how our health care would have been ‘rationed’ by the government is absurd compared to the rationing that already exist on a huge scale by the for profit health insurance industry!! People are dying, over 40,000 a year, because they have either been denied insurance or because they have been unceremoniously ‘dropped’ by the insurance carrier they had! Our medical care would have been determined by doctors under a national system-not by coin counters paid to defer to the profits of their bosses heading insurance companies, as they are today and not by a government panel of non medical people, as are the insurance coin counters. Every health insurance company has people specifically hired and trained to refuse those who apply for a health insurance policy, or to drop those who already have them- this is all about profit for the company. Insurance company profits have risen dramatically over the last decade alone, yet they continue to increase the price of their policies-California just had a notice from one that they intend to raise the price of their premiums 39% and could raise it again before the year is over! Yet their CEO’s continue to make salaries in the millions of dollars, with bonuses bigger than their yearly salaries. The profits they post do not count those salaries, bonuses and other perks-which is very misleading.
Those profits and perks and bonuses, along with the people on staff to drop or refuse, along with sales people and expensive adds on television and the print media would not be a part of the expense to the administration of a public option or a plan to cover everyone, as Medicare now covers those over 65. A public option or total coverage under Universal Medicare

Answer by Jesus loves Ann Coulter
Well not practically because it would be a government service (a bad one) that still would be open to you and you would recieve some benefit from. Even if you decided you were going to boycott it, and got into a car accident, you would still use it just not willingly.

As a matter of philosophy, it is a violation of liberty because they are trying to jam it through using shifty processes that the founders did not intend in order to bring about social control most of us are not in favor of to begin with. In that sense, yes it is taxation without representation.