The problem with national healthcare is that it takes the approach that healthcare is so costly that we must find alternative means to pay for said costs. The problem here is that healthcare is costly, and the plan doesn't look for a way to lower costs, but instead to cover the costs.

One of the frequent criticisms of Obamacare is that it only addressed the access to healthcare issue, not the massive cost issue crushing personal, business and government budgets. But Obamacare does tackle the problem not just by making up the costs, but aiming to reduce it.

Obamacare has a far better approach: reduce health-care costs by providing better care and promoting better health.

The law does this by targeting the underlying drivers of high health-care costs: It supports and rewards caregivers for preventing complications of care, like health-care-associated infections, which saves both lives and money. The CMS, for example, has set ambitious goals to reduce complications that, if met, would save 60,000 lives and $35 billion in just three years. The law also emphasizes preventive care and cracks down hard on waste and fraud. Last year the government recaptured a record $4 billion. It fosters transparency, so everyone can tell the best performers from the rest.

If that's the case, if healthcare is going to be cheaper, then why is it a crime not to be a part of the system? It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand why it would be illegal to financially distance yourself from something.

it's not a crime, just a tax. it isn't illegal, but the goal of the tax is to encourage the purchase of health insurance. you can stay away from the system, but you should only do that if you have deep pockets.

the aim of having both insurance and cheaper healthcare is to make the payments for the common man as close to 0 as possible. I don't know about you, but my wallet will be thanking me for taking part in the system.

-Blade

Just to clarify, shouldn't we find ways to reduce healthcare costs so we don't have to resort to making criminals out of good people?

Criminals... what? Anyway, yes, that certainly should be a goal, but in the meantime obligatory healthcare is a good alternative.

If you, and others who feel the same way as you do, want to be a part of a system, you should become a part of said system. However, those who want nothing to do with it should be allowed to opt out.

Don't you see any long-term benefits for the whole of society, including you, with healthcare? I think there are, and that it is only reasonable to make all of the country contribute.

If that's the case, if healthcare is going to be cheaper, then why is it a crime not to be a part of the system? It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand why it would be illegal to financially distance yourself from something.

The wording of the law as a ''crime'' is to increase coverage. You're missing the point. The government doesn't care about minuscule control, it doesn't care if individuals choose not to get healthcare, and hence because of such poor foresight, by chance die in the future due to bad choices. It can't give two hoots about interfering in your little life. 

It cares about the consequences of these actions on society as a whole. Healthcare is a good with positive externalities that we are not always aware of, or at the very least do not care about. When humans make economic choices, we most likely only take into account private costs/benefits. I.e private marginal costs and private marginal benefits. We do not take into account what society stands to lose or gain. Healthcare does provide benefits for the individual, but it helps society. People are less afflicted with illness, worker productivity goes up, less subsidies are needed to cover their treatment in society, etc etc.

We underconsume healthcare, just like we underconsume almost all goods with positive externalities. This leads to a deadweight loss, a loss in welfare to society as a whole as seen in the diagram below.

There is a divergence between MPC and MSB (Social Marginal Benefit) if we follow market forces solely, which ends up at the equilibrium quantity of Qmkt. The red triangle represents the deadweight loss; ideally to maximise efficiency and benefit, quantity consumed should be at Qaff, at point M. Making healthcare compulsory pushes this up, and society as a whole benefits.

If I hold a gun to you face and buy medicine for your illness, you should be allowed to sue me and I should be imprisoned. It may be beneficial to humanity to force them into good health, but coercion is not the answer.

You're exaggerating it. It's just a penalty to companies.

To coerce others into buying healthcare is a statement that you know better than everyone else, therefore you should have the power to tell everyone else what to do. Let people make their own decisions and use education and other means to help others.

Education has a long gestation period, or doesn't work. Environmental education has been here for years, yet people still leave such huge carbon footprints, refuse to recycle, and the lot.

There are starving children in Africa, am I justified in stealing money to provide food to those children? No, I am not. Why should it be any different for healthcare?

This isn't even a valid comparison/analogy. There's hardly a link here. Obamacare is not ''stealing'' money to fund itself; it is raising taxes through a variety of ways, such as taxing those corrupt insurance companies.

I think the thought is good and it may turn out alright. I am just highly skeptical on the actual doing side of it. I am not a big Obama fan so I am naturally not to excited to see how it will play out. I think the thought is a good idea though and with a little tweaking I think it would end up fine.