"Force Americans to get health insurance"?

It's trying to save you money. Would you support a system that didn't make auto insurance a requirement?

They look stupid doing it too. It seems really contrived.

Why did they wait this long to get balls? Now they look like they are ganging up on her and will wind up making her a sympathetic figure.

Also, what is with that crowd? Do they think it's a tractor pull or something?

I don't understand why they want to force people to get health insurance. If you're healthy it's cheaper when you don't pay for it. Say you're forced to pay $1,000 a month like many plans. That's $12,000 a year or $120,000 after 10 years. You would have to be pretty sick to run up those kinds of costs over a 10 year period. I haven't used a tenth of that in over 48 years.

The government always thinks they know what's good for us.

guess what happens when someone who isn't insured shows up at an emergency room? hint: it involves your tax $. "Force" might be unnecessary but it makes just as much sense to require health insurance as it does to require car insurance, because it makes people responsible for emergencies they don't expect. call it "duty as a citizen" or something. eh?

mobile9 wrote:

It's trying to save you money. Would you support a system that didn't make auto insurance a requirement?

auto insurance is not required in many states.

as an aside, states with mandatory insurance have HIGHER premiums than states with no requirement that people get it.

cant leave it be wrote:

guess what happens when someone who isn't insured shows up at an emergency room? hint: it involves your tax $. "Force" might be unnecessary but it makes just as much sense to require health insurance as it does to require car insurance, because it makes people responsible for emergencies they don't expect. call it "duty as a citizen" or something. eh?

That's where the problem is. They let these people get free health care. You treat them and if they don't pay the bill you throw them in jail until they do pay.

Yep wrote:

I don't understand why they want to force people to get health insurance. If you're healthy it's cheaper when you don't pay for it. Say you're forced to pay $1,000 a month like many plans. That's $12,000 a year or $120,000 after 10 years. You would have to be pretty sick to run up those kinds of costs over a 10 year period. I haven't used a tenth of that in over 48 years.

The government always thinks they know what's good for us.

a) for a healthy individual, premiums wouldn't go near $1000/mo. I know of someone who paide around that much for his wife, toddler and infant.

b) when an uninsured person needs emergency care they aren't denied and the cost ispassed onto the taxpayers. You pay for it one wqay or another.

Yep wrote:

cant leave it be wrote:

guess what happens when someone who isn't insured shows up at an emergency room? hint: it involves your tax $. "Force" might be unnecessary but it makes just as much sense to require health insurance as it does to require car insurance, because it makes people responsible for emergencies they don't expect. call it "duty as a citizen" or something. eh?

That's where the problem is. They let these people get free health care. You treat them and if they don't pay the bill you throw them in jail until they do pay.

Let me see if I understand this:

-John is poor and doesn't have health insurance.

-John has a heart attack and is rushed to the hospital.

-the costs of his medical emergency far exceed what John could pay in any reasonable length of time.

-So you want to spend more public money to house, feed and clothe John and yet simulataneously take away any remaining chance John would have to make the money needed to pay off his debt?

How is that more economically viable?

Yep wrote:

That's where the problem is. They let these people get free health care. You treat them and if they don't pay the bill you throw them in jail until they do pay.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.

So, John Doe makes $20,000 a year with no health insurance (he can't afford it... trust me, and he probably doesn't qualify for medicare). He gets into a car accident on his way to work and spends four days in the hospital and ten weeks on bed rest because of broken vertabrae. His medical bills esceed $100,000. He can't possibly pay for this (even on a resonable payment plan). He is forced to declare bankruptcy and John Q Public ends up paying for it.

And you want to keep him in jail until he does pay? Yeah, that should work.

Better yet, let's have some sort of government sponsored healthcare system that covers everyone, not just those at the lowest of tax brackets. Also, invest more money in preventative measures (stick it to Big Pharma) and be more proactive; let's cut down on heart disease, diabetes, etc. It is much cheaper to pay for medical care up front than retroactively.

That's right Eric. He can't get into an auto accident in jail now can he. It's you bleeding hearts that cause the problems. F*** john Doe if he can't pay. Kill the bastard for all I care ;o)

that's weiwd

Besides if you can't make more than 20 grand in this country you should be shot

Yep wrote:

Besides if you can't make more than 20 grand in this country you should be shot

That's the thinking. I suggest wearing on a tshirt.

Yep wrote:

If you're healthy it's cheaper when you don't pay for it. Say you're forced to pay $1,000 a month like many plans.

You don't buy health insurance for when you're healthy. Insurance is just that, insurance against something bad happening. If people try to maximize their expected lifetime utility (if you've ever taken a graduate econ class, you'd know this is the basic building block), and there is a .001 probability of something really bad happening (say a $100,000 shock to their wealth and they make $40,000 a year) then it makes sense to pay well over $100 a year, because in the "hard times" the marginal utility of every dollar is so much higher.

Of course you don't "expect" to be reimbursed over your lifetime for the full cost of insurance expenses, that's how companies make money. You're just trying to allocate your resources to maximize your expected utility, not wealth...basically you can explain all of insurance by the concavity of people's utility functions.

By the way I make around $20,000 a year and I am a helluva lot smarter than you so bugger off.

I have great health insurance and I don't want to pay for someone else's. Case rested for me.

"They are really jumping on Hillary. It is a shark feeding frenzy!"

Luv2Run, what are you watching?

I've got an idea for you. Try watching with an open mind rather than what the idiots on the Fox network are trying to jam down your throat.

sam w wrote:

mobile9 wrote:

It's trying to save you money. Would you support a system that didn't make auto insurance a requirement?

auto insurance is not required in many states.

as an aside, states with mandatory insurance have HIGHER premiums than states with no requirement that people get it.

i think by "not required" and "many," you mean "required" and "all." i'm fairly certain that all states now require a minimum level of auto insurance. at any rate, if there are any holdouts, they number no more than a couple.

And if you think about it, those holdouts states are more likely to be somewhere like North Dakota, where of course premiums are low. It would take an idiot to think non-mandatory auto insurance results in lower premiums.

I have to agree with the sentiment that I shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance. I take it as a clear infringement on my personal liberty.

It's not the same as being required to buy car insurance. Driving is a privilege and I have opted in to a scheme where insurance is part of the buy in. The other parts being a license and a car/bike.

Living is not a government granted privilege. I understand the logic, but I can't afford to nor do I want to pay higher premiums to cover other people.