Here are some quotes from Mitt Romney on his almost identical plan for MA:

"No more 'free riding', if you will, where an individual says 'I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it'".

"It's the ultimate conservative idea, which is that people have responsibility for their own care, and they don't look to government to take care of them if they can afford to take care of themselves".

1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up 0.9%.

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen....

Fortunately for Ray and David, none of these really big changes will ever kick in, since on 1/1/2013 the world will have come to an end.

Well since 60% of bankruptcy is caused by medical bills, then yeah it just might here in the real world.

Uh, no.

Here is a Businessweek post about the Harvard study that puts the figure at 62%.

This one has the figure lower, 42%, but far and away the leading cause.

Here's the referenced Warren report, showing a raise from 46.2% in 2001 to 62.2% in 2007.

I assume you have some reason to dismiss either the figures in the Harvard study, or the facts that even at a lower figure it blows non-medical reasons out of the water. I didn't have much of a chance to look for the opposing figures, which I'm sure exist.

Since one of Ray's principles is never opening links (apparently he's too busy to do that), I'll spare him the trouble by pasting the leading paragraphs from the ones that Lassus just provided. Not that any of these studies will affect David's or Ray's entrenched position in the slightest, but it can't hurt to put a few facts out there for the less doctrinaire who may be lurking.

Here is a Businessweek post about the Harvard study that puts the figure at 62%.

Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy

By Catherine Arnst

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

This one has the figure lower, 42%, but far and away the leading cause.

10 Leading Causes of Bankruptcy

Percentages represent reasons an individual files bankruptcy. Sources were combined to average top reasons Americans filed.

Medical Expenses (42%)
Recent studies have shown that 42% of all personal bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. The study also reveals that 78% of those who filed had insurance.

Job Loss (22%)
Millions of Americans are unemployed, which makes them much more likely to file for bankruptcy. Unemployed individuals often pay for insurance out-of-pocket.

Uncontrolled Spending (15%)
Credit card bills, large mortgages, and expensive car payments contribute to bankruptcy. Uncontrolled spending habits can put Americans on a path to filing.

Divorce (8%)
Legal fees, child support, alimony and the burden of providing for a household on one income can result in ample financial stress. Divorce rates are nearly 50% in America.

Unexpected Disaster (7%)
Unexpected disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes can be nearly impossible to prepare for. If a homeowner is without insurance, this can possibly lead to bankruptcy.

Avoiding Foreclosure (1.5%)
An individual can spend a life time preparing to purchase a home. Just to avoid foreclosure, some Americans will file for bankruptcy to re-organize debt.

Poor Financial Planning (1.5%)
Not having a sound financial plan can lead to bankruptcy. Financial experts recommend establishing savings for expenses that could lead to debt.

Preventing Loss of Utilities (1%)
Along with home foreclosure is the risk of losing utilities. Keeping lights on and a house warm can be a factor for someone to file.

Student Loans (1%)
Student loans won't be eliminated like other unsecured debt, but it may be possible to consolidate student loans with a bankruptcy.

Preventing Repossession (1%)
If a creditor repossessed your vehicle, filing bankruptcy may force them to return the car, and any other personal property that may have been repossessed.

Here's the referenced Warren report, showing a raise from 46.2% in 2001 to 62.2% in 2007.

BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.

What's funny/sad about the Redneck's riff in #149 is that it's pretty much what Enron decided to do to the energy industry. There are enormous fortunes to be made by tearing up the infrastructure and letting swashbucklers fight over a newly opened market in its services. Much of this comes down to how much infrastructure one thinks we should have. Free public libraries, but no free public operas? Regulated basic electrical power, but no Chevy Volts for all? Boundless free emergency-room care, but no free facelifts? There's always a compromise somewhere in between.

It's incredibly stupid to live in a city and say "Whether my neighbour's house burns down or not is none of my business". Even if you're maximally callous - fires don't work that way. If the fire department just lets houses burn, the city is going to burn down. And since they know the city is going to burn down, insurance companies won't offer you fire insurance.

I agree, but this wasn't in a city. In a place with detached homes, the considerations are quite different.

.

I agree, but this wasn't in a city. In a place with detached homes, the considerations are quite different.

Have you never actually seen a fire? Good lord.

Anyhow, Colorado and much of the Pacific Southwest disagrees.

I agree, but this wasn't in a city. In a place with detached homes, the considerations are quite different.

The limits are easier to understand than the greyer areas. Detached homes or not, I also don't want to live in a place where people walk around with whooping cough because they can't afford vaccines (or figure it's smart to gamble they won't contract it, because it's affordable but expensive.) One could generate quite a long list.

The fire station on the edge of town won't serve the immediately surrounding unincorporated outlying areas although, visually, you can't see much difference between the two. Moreover, even though it may not take the fire trucks any longer to get to your home in the suburb outside the city limits than it does to get to any place inside the city limit, rest assured that the rural homeowner's premium will have a hefty surcharge.

I assume you have some reason to dismiss either the figures in the Harvard study, or the facts that even at a lower figure it blows non-medical reasons out of the water. I didn't have much of a chance to look for the opposing figures, which I'm sure exist.

I absolutely have a reason to dismiss the figures in the Harvard study: I've read the actual study. First, it defined "medical" to include things that weren't medical, like gambling debt or the adoption of a child. (Seriously!) (It also included lost income due to illness, which - though related to health - doesn't make any analytic sense.) Second, it did not remotely show that those bankruptcies were caused by medical debt. What it actually found was that in 62% of cases where people filed for bankruptcy, they had some small amount of medical debt. Warren's agenda-driven study counted it as a medical bankruptcy if you had $2,000 of medical bills and the rest of your $50,000 in life's savings invested with Lenny Dykstra.

(A good rule of thumb is that when an activist claims a much bigger problem than the supposed victims of that problem to, you can ignore the activist's claims. Bankruptcy filers themselves in Warren's research only claimed that medical bills were a significant cause of their bankruptcy about 30% of the time, even though they have an inventive to excuse their bankruptcies as not their fault by citing medical bills, rather than admitting they spent all their money on designer shoes.)

No, it isn't. It's reasonable and just.

And that, my dear ones, is why those of us in the know just sort of throw rocks at David. He has no idea what reasonable or just means.

Have you never actually seen a fire? Good lord.

This made me laugh.

First, it defined "medical" to include things that weren't medical, like gambling debt

Someone who feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances obviously suffers from a bit of mental illness. That would be a medical issue.

(It also included lost income due to illness, which - though related to health - doesn't make any analytic sense.

It makes perfect sense. They can't work because they are sick? Why, I do believe that is a medical issue! And, more than likely, they couldn't afford treatment to get better.

Have you never actually seen a fire? Good lord.

Anyhow, Colorado and much of the Pacific Southwest disagrees.

Oh, Lassus--stop being disingenuous. You know full well David only meant neglecting a house fire is "reasonable and just" where (1) the owner hasn't paid his public works "use fee" or whatever; (2) it's a detached home, and (3) the precise environmental conditions at that precise moment (dryness of terrain, wind currents, current and forecasted heat and cloud cover levels, etc., etc.), and whether they're conducive to safely letting the conflagration die out on its own in a blaze of libertarian glory without inconveniencing one's neighbors (I'd say the "public good," but there of course is no such thing) can be precisely determined. Duh.

EDIT: Oh, and where, of course, as a corollary to (3), we can with total assuredness calculate that the blaze won't cross from one municipality into another. Jeez, you liberals...

My point is that you guys are identifying the wrong problem. The problem is not that the cost of health insurance is too high; the problem is that some people can't support themselves. It may be good policy to provide health care for them, but people should stop pretending that the core problem is the cost of the health insurance.

20+ years ago, the cost of health insurance wasn't as big of a problem as it is today. Today, the rising price of health insurance has eaten up all the gains in salary from increased productivity and then some.

I'd also like to know how you think you can lift the American worker into a place where they're making as much money (after paying for healthcare and housing) as they were 20 years ago. You hate wealth re-distribution. What policies that are not re-distributive address the problem?

(A good rule of thumb is that when an activist claims a much bigger problem than the supposed victims of that problem to, you can ignore the activist's claims. Bankruptcy filers themselves in Warren's research only claimed that medical bills were a significant cause of their bankruptcy about 30% of the time, even though they have an inventive to excuse their bankruptcies as not their fault by citing medical bills, rather than admitting they spent all their money on designer shoes.)

Those cited in the Warren study as having had medical bankruptcies had an average net worth of -$44,622. Their out-of-pocket medical expenses had been an average of $17,943, but for uninsured filers it had been $26,971, which of course doesn't include those still-unpaid bills. Somehow I don't think that the issue here was expenditures on designer shoes.

I'd also like to know how you think you can lift the American worker into a place where they're making as much money (after paying for healthcare and housing) as they were 20 years ago. You hate wealth re-distribution. What policies that are not re-distributive address the problem?

You miss his point. He doesn't think it's a problem. That's just how the market has worked.

As a follow to #165, and to depart from snark for just a moment:

David, as a matter of "reasonableness and justness," is the fire department's non-response equally "reasonable and just" in your hypo if the home in question is renter-occupied, and not owner-occupied, or doesn't that matter? (And do other considerations [i.e., has the owner disclosed his obligation to pay the public works "use fee," and whether he's paid it or not, to the renter] come into play? )

EDIT: Also, does it matter whether said renters are home or not at the time of the fire?

Being unable to pay your medical bills only means one thing - the free market has determined that you don't generate enough value to be worth keeping alive.

Finally somebody in this thread is talking some sense, even if wasn't intentional.

No, it isn't. It's reasonable and just.

And that, my dear ones, is why those of us in the know just sort of throw rocks at David. He has no idea what reasonable or just means.

You don't need to create a strawman when Dave is around, eventually he'll make those arguments/statements for you.

and if he doesn't GF will (see 170 above)

You don't need to create a strawman when Dave is around, eventually he'll make those arguments/statements for you.

The key is to be patient enough to let him actually make them, lest he otherwise accuse you of attacking a strawman.

For now, the courts deem the ACA to be constitutional. When Ginsburg has to retire midway through Gary Johnson's first term as president, and she's replaced by someone who cares about freedom, then the Court will change its collective mind. And since the Constitution won't have changed in that time, one of those two Courts will have been wrong, by definition.

If you insist on your ideologically-loaded interpretation as The One Truth. All texts require human interpreters. Your definition of "freedom" is highly subjective and ideological. Your understanding of the Constitution is similarly charged. Pretending otherwise, and then expecting others to play along with the charade, is a rhetorical strategy masking itself as an argument.

Nobody's saying that court decisions can't be subjectively "wrong", according to one's various premises.

This is gibberish. What on earth does "subjectively wrong" mean?

This is the part where you recognize that others have different opinions, David, and you have to coexist with them. This is something everyone but Libertarians learned when they were growing up.

"Wrong according to your interpretation of the text and the values you're bringing to bear on it" = "subjectively wrong"

That you want there to be an objective truth beyond your interpretation doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.

==
If most people could afford it, then yes.

You keep saying most. What's the threshold for "most"?

My point is that you guys are identifying the wrong problem.

That became your point as of 4 minutes ago.

people should stop pretending that the core problem is the cost of the health insurance.

Stop. This has been explained to you. You have your ears stuffed with wax. The cost of insurance, and the cost of health care, is rising, and it's going to keep rising, and without taking steps to address that, it will become inaccessible to greater swaths of the population-- so what every your threshold for "most" is, the percentage of people who can *afford* insurance is shrinking. Only a Libertarian ideologue looks at this situation says, "eh, #### 'em." The rest of us have moved out of the 19th century.

Putting your "all government regulations are slavery" nonsense, in the list Gonfalon posted in #147, which regulations do you find unbearable?

I'd also like to know how you think you can lift the American worker into a place where they're making as much money (after paying for healthcare and housing) as they were 20 years ago. You hate wealth re-distribution. What policies that are not re-distributive address the problem?

I suspect the obvious answer to this is that he doesn't agree with the premise that anything needs to be done to address it, and that any government-driven attempt to do so would likely be 1) an unjustified imposition and 2) not efficient or effective. (Really the clue is in the word "lifting" -- I think once you talk about lifting people up, you're already (in most cases) past what he and others with similar views would consider to be the proper function of government. People should only ever be lifting themselves up, or being lifted by those who have specifically and voluntarily agreed to do so, in this worldview.)

I don't agree with this personally, but I think this part of that philosophy is pretty clear.

Edit: or what 168 said.

The key is to be patient enough to let him actually make them, lest he otherwise accuse you of attacking a strawman.

Such is the fate of he who replaces justice and humanity with economic materialism reduced to nothingness by dint of "principles."

Putting your "all government regulations are slavery" nonsense, in the list Gonfalon posted in #147, which regulations do you find unbearable?

This question answers itself. All of them.

This is the part where you recognize that others have different opinions, David, and you have to coexist with them. This is something everyone but Libertarians learned when they were growing up.

Actually Libertarians share that self-referential conceit with Leninists. They don't agree on economics or much of anything else, but when it comes to rhetorical tactics and an obsessive striving towards a rigid "correctness", those groups are like two peas in a pod. It's always ideology first, and every other consideration little more than an afterthought.

I think I'm just going to stock up on popcorn now to beat the rush for the coming day when the Black Bloc anarchists on the left and the glibertarian "TAXES ARE SLAVERY!!!" set on the right finally realize that they want close enough to the same thing that they decide to march on DC together and let the chips fall where they may afterwards.

It was a nice society we had for a while -- who knew that Al Gore's secret wish to reduce us to hunter-gatherers living in caves would come about in this fashion?

You miss his point. He doesn't think it's a problem. That's just how the market has worked.

I suspect the obvious answer to this is that he doesn't agree with the premise that anything needs to be done to address it, and that any government-driven attempt to do so would likely be 1) an unjustified imposition and 2) not efficient or effective. (Really the clue is in the word "lifting" -- I think once you talk about lifting people up, you're already (in most cases) past what he and others with similar views would consider to be the proper function of government. People should only ever be lifting themselves up, or being lifted by those who have specifically and voluntarily agreed to do so, in this worldview.)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous for him to be saying that healthcare isn't the problem when he doesn't think that there is, in fact, a problem?

Edit: I mean, I'm not an idiot, so obviously the above occurred to me as well. My point is simply that his phrasing indicated that he thought that there was a problem, so I was asking the question sincerely.

It's incredibly stupid to live in a city and say "Whether my neighbour's house burns down or not is none of my business". Even if you're maximally callous - fires don't work that way. If the fire department just lets houses burn, the city is going to burn down. And since they know the city is going to burn down, insurance companies won't offer you fire insurance.

Not that I'm defending the policy, but the fire department showed up and watched this guy's house burn (to make sure the fire didn't spread to other, participating homes). IIRC, the homeowner offered to pay on the spot, and the fire department refused. (That I have a problem with. Just charge the guy cost and a penalty if you're committed to the program.)

This question answers itself. All of them.

Some regulations on that list are about disclosure; I thought maybe a few of these would be acceptable. I'd like to see a poll on a right-winger site where people rank-ordered those on a scale of "slits freedom's throat" to "slits freedom's throat, ##### the bleeding wound, douses freedom in gasoline, lights freedom on fire, then throws freedom's burning body into a wood-chipper".

Obviously the tax increase would be the worst transgression.

But the point is as long as my neighbours' houses are on fire, the fire department's ability to save mine is not very secure. Them standing around waiting for my house to catch fire so they can put it out is better than nothing, but I'm much better off if it never catches in the first place.

They guy did offer to pay the $75 annual fee on the spot, which the fire department refused. I don't think you can reasonably have much of a problem with that. If they put out all fires, nobody would pay (or very few people, anyhow), and they'd soon be bankrupt. Only by forcing everyone to pay can you avoid all your houses burning down. (Or the Crassus method, of course. But a Fire Department that only got paid when they actually put out a fire would more or less have to go the Crassus method.)

They guy did offer to pay the $75 annual fee on the spot, which the fire department refused. I don't think you can reasonably have much of a problem with that. If they put out all fires, nobody would pay (or very few people, anyhow), and they'd soon be bankrupt. Only by forcing everyone to pay can you avoid all your houses burning down. (Or the Crassus method, of course. But a Fire Department that only got paid when they actually put out a fire would more or less have to go the Crassus method.)

Yeah, I agree with this. It really points to the problem of non-collective action for collective goods like fire control. By allowing people to opt out--even though the fire co-pay is very affordable, just $6.25 per month!!!--there are too many people who do so.

This gets back to why it's necessary to pay for collective goods collectively.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous for him to be saying that healthcare isn't the problem when he doesn't think that there is, in fact, a problem?

Well, I think he acknowledges the truth of what many other people think is a problem -- that not everyone can afford health insurance -- but he himself either doesn't consider it a problem, or agrees that it is a problem but strenuously disagrees that it's a problem that government should be trying to solve. I mean he did say this:

But don't imply [...] that the issue is the cost of health insurance when the issue is not the cost of health insurance, but is simply that some people, for whatever reason, don't have the means to support themselves.

Here are some quotes from Mitt Romney on his almost identical plan for MA

There are some minor differences. I think that's the approach that Romney will take in the debates: a "one-size-fits-all" federal program isn't the same as a state-specific program, and the plan had a much higher approval rating (positive) in Massachusetts than Obamacare does nationally (negative).

"Romneycare is the solution that the Massachusetts voters wanted, and within the scope of the powers granted by the Constitution to the states. Obamacare is an attempt to force something on the American people that they don't want, and four justices agreed that it is an abuse of federal power."

Isn't it a bit disingenuous for him to be saying that healthcare isn't the problem when he doesn't think that there is, in fact, a problem?

Edit: I mean, I'm not an idiot, so obviously the above occurred to me as well. My point is simply that his phrasing indicated that he thought that there was a problem, so I was asking the question sincerely.

This is a fun game you guys are playing, where you ask me questions and then answer them for me while forming a circle with each other and taking your high fives.

I agree that it is a problem that some people can't afford health insurance. (I'm glad we got that out of the way. Who's trolling now?) But I don't agree that the only way to attempt to solve this problem is by forcing everyone to pay through government.

And as I've said I don't think the problem is the cost of health insurance per se. Yes, the cost of health insurance can serve to be reduced, obviously, because there is a lot of "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the system. But there were other ways to overhaul the system that would have been better.

Regardless, reducing the cost of health insurance by a little is only going to help around the margins. The real problem (one of them, anyway) is that there are some people who can't support themselves any way you slice it. They can't afford health insurance - or rent, or a car payment, or food - not because these things cost too much or are "unaffordable," but because the people ended up in a place - for whatever reason - where they cannot financially provide for themselves and their families. In that case health insurance is just one of a number of things they can't pay for. And so the problem is not the cost of health insurance per se. Now, the ACA forces everyone to pay for them. Fine. But I reject out of hand the notion that the core problem was the cost of something that the vast majority of people were affording.

I agree that it is a problem that some people can't afford health insurance.

I don't think it's a problem that some people can't afford health insurance. I think it's a problem that some people cannot afford health care.

It's like George Carlin used to say: the problem isn't that people are homeless, but that they don't have houses. The more abstractions we create from the real problem, the less likely we are to address it properly.

...and taking your high fives.

I simply cannot believe you are returning to this goofy petulance.

The fact that some people can't afford health care is more than just a moral problem (although that's very important). Having a bunch of untreated, chronically ill people has got to be a drag on our economy. And our current system probably stifles entrepreneurs by tying our health care so closely to our employers. Leaving your job at a big company to start your own shop is always going to be a risky venture, but the cost of health insurance makes it far more difficult.

This is a fun game you guys are playing, where you ask me questions and then answer them for me while forming a circle with each other and taking your high fives.

I don't know if I am being included in that swipe, but I was actually trying to accurately paraphrase you and indicate that while I don't have the same fundamental beliefs, I do (I think) understand your position on this issue.

Providing health care to people may or may not be desirable, but it's not really an issue comparable to a free rider problem unless we're only requiring health insurance to cover health issues that are easily communicable to an unwilling third party. In this case, the free rider problem is the artificial result of creation of legislation to make a free rider problem - if we pass laws stating that every time someone wants a pie, they can go to a government bakery and get a free pie, the free rider issue comes from the law mandating this, not something inherent in pie consumption that creates a free rider.

As such, it's not comparable to the fire insurance or car insurance or military comparisons unless we're talking about, say, influenza or chickenpox treatment. Bill's house fire can spread to Rick's house, Bill's car can crash into Rick's car, and the army's actions necessary to protect Bill's house also protects Rick's house, but Bill's broken leg, cancer, or irritable bowel syndrome aren't doing anything to Rick - the free rider problem is one artificially created by the law mandating coverage. Now, that's not to say a universal health care system can't be a positive idea for other reasons (I'm not going into that one), but it's not because of free riders.

I think I'm just going to stock up on popcorn now to beat the rush for the coming day when the Black Bloc anarchists on the left and the glibertarian "TAXES ARE SLAVERY!!!" set on the right finally realize that they want close enough to the same thing that they decide to march on DC together and let the chips fall where they may afterwards.

Okay. Let me just say this once. The Bloc wants nothing to do with those guys. The Bloc knows the value of a man on a barricade, and a man who relies on the power of the police state to prop up his Law Uber Alles is not a friend of the Bloc. Should the Bloc lose itself in this manner, the Bloc will have to reassert itself against the Bloc.

First, it defined "medical" to include things that weren't medical, like gambling debt

Someone who feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances obviously suffers from a bit of mental illness. That would be a medical issue.

Once you start whining that crap like this isn't covered, you lose people.

(It also included lost income due to illness, which - though related to health - doesn't make any analytic sense.

It makes perfect sense. They can't work because they are sick? Why, I do believe that is a medical issue! And, more than likely, they couldn't afford treatment to get better.

It is not an issue of insurance. It's an issue of not being able to earn the same income that the person did before.

the army's actions necessary to protect Bill's house also protects Rick's house

Don't see how this argument applies to the Iraq War...

Once you start whining that crap like this isn't covered, you lose people.

Are you conceding that it is a medical issue?

It is not an issue of insurance. It's an issue of not being able to earn the same income that the person did before.

So a debt caused by a reduction in income stemming from medical issues isn't a debt caused by medical issues?

Have you never actually seen a fire? Good lord.

Indeed I have. Have you actually seen a suburb?

Anyhow, Colorado and much of the Pacific Southwest disagrees.

I was going to write something about that, but I figured it was so obviously irrelevant that nobody would need it pointed out. Yes, wildfires present an entirely different scenario than house fires. When there are wildfires, the people trying to stop them aren't trying to put out individual homes at all; they're trying to stop the spread of the fire.

Someone who feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances obviously suffers from a bit of mental illness. That would be a medical issue.

IMHO if someone feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances, that person should be sterilized and prevented from passing on their genes...

In no fecking way should such people be enabled in their destructive behavior by being told, "there there it is not your fault, you're sick you can't help it."

I was going to write something about that, but I figured it was so obviously irrelevant that nobody would need it pointed out. Yes, wildfires present an entirely different scenario than house fires. When there are wildfires, the people trying to stop them aren't trying to put out individual homes at all; they're trying to stop the spread of the fire.

The fun part is that he honestly has no idea how bad an argument this is.

Now, that's not to say a universal health care system can't be a positive idea for other reasons (I'm not going into that one), but it's not because of free riders

In this vein, supporters of the universal healthcare or the ACA never argue to the 'it eliminates free riders' point as an end-point. The mandate was included because without universal coverage, by attempting to split the middle and go with a "free market solution" you have to address the free rider problem that comes from not turning insurance into a public utility.

No one that I know suggests that we should have universal healthcare because else we'd have free riders. People argue for universal healthcare for those "other reasons" you're not going into."