"Force Americans to get health insurance"?

it's amazing how individualistic us americans can be. i think if given the choice to live in a society where everyone made relatively the same income, had health insurance, had a car and lived in a decent house, or to individually in the exact same situation but have everyone in your community be poor and broke and dying, many of us would choose the latter.

We really have been raised to be, well, pretty retarded.

Comparing mandatory auto insurance to mandatory health insurance is like comparing apples to sheetrock.

If people could buy health insurance for the same price that they can buy auto insurance, for the same relative level of coverage, everyone would buy health insurance. It would be a no brainer. Personally, I get auto coverage for less than $500/year for decent coverage levels. There is no way I could get decent health insurance for anywhere near that price.

Had health insurance at work for 13 years which ended in 2000. At the end it was almost $450/month for single coverage, $750/month for family coverage (I was the plan administrator which is why I know the numbers). In 13 years I had exactly 2 medical claims, both for physicals. Had to pay both 100% out of pocket due to deductibles. Any system that penalizes preventative practices has its priorities screwed up.

jethro wrote:

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.

That's sound in principle. But say you opt out. It's your right, after all. Then say you or a loved one needs emergency care. 99% of people who opt out will say the hell with principle and take it (In a few generations that will be 100% because the children of the last 1% will be miscarried). Then people who didn't opt out will pay for your copout care. It is NOT a personal liberty to freeload, which is what DOES happen.

It always scare me when I agree with Mobile9, but I think he is on target here. My only concern is not putting the burden solely on employers. Splitting the cost between employers/employees (not necessarily at 50/50) will exert some pressure on escalating cost as people are less likely to spend their own money as compared to spending someone else's money

Yeah, no manadtory draft card, no mandatory social security number, no mandatory military service. Then we can call be like Prick Cheney, a wimp and a Chicken Hawk coward.

Do you hate the poor and sick? wrote:

All of these libertarian arguments are nice on the surface, but keep in mind that if you really believe them you MUST be willing to let poor and sick people die on the streets and essentially say, "f*** you, you poor piece of shit" as they die slowly on your doorstep.

Why is this the only alternative? I am glad to have people live with the consequences of their own choices, but I am also happy for you to contribute charitably to treat people who can't afford coverage. I would even be willing to kick in some money myself. I just don't like the idea of my money being taken from me at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of somebody else's decision.

I agree that we need some way to motivate people to take care of their health but you also must realize not everyone has the same opportunity to do so. Ask the single mom in the ghetto who works 60 hours a week for minimum wage about that.

And the alternatives you suggest are either to help people pay for their health care or not. A market approach will not contribute to help these people. You either agree that the gov't will help (i.e. tax dollars) to some extent and provide basic care (and especially preventive care) or you let people get sick and die. Thee are many in-between alternatives but they all require tax dollar help for the needy and not a single mid-way alternative will fall on insurance companies and hospitals to simply give out free health care. Capitalism doesn't have a heart it has a bottom line.

Again, find me a health insurance business that will provide reasonable cost care to a sick or risky person. It doesn't exist unless they are employed by a large employer. And give it few years...employers are sick of the rising costs too. Even they are cutting back and making heath care unreasonable for most. Have you noticed how many companies are cutting health care?

It is undeniable that a capitalist approach to health care requires that fewer dollars be spent on care and only the healthiest patients be covered. You cannot provide good care to all citizens and make a good profit too. Profit means more customers who need less care...which is disaster.

Unless you are ok with letting poor and or sick people die on the streets... then this system works really well.

Wow. That\'s a fact. I hate the government taking my tax money and funding genocide and imperialism against the Arabs. I\'m Christian, yet why should I have to pay for W.Bush\'s Christian Crusade Against Islam ?

luv2run wrote:

I loved the line in the Democratic prez debate where Obama condemns Sen Clinton for not forcing people to get health insurance.

That is a great line and tells what Democrats think of personal liberty. No one should be forced by government to get health insurance.

Actually this is a Republican thing, at least it has been for Romney. As governor, he spearheaded the Massachusetts law requiring all residents to have health insurance.

Yep wrote:

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.

My story: Male, 48, never smoked, rarely drink, height/weight proportionate, ate healthy, ran 40-50 miles a week, haven't missed a day of work, ever. Diagnosed with colon cancer Feb 22.

Low Anterior Resection: $40K

Radiation Therapy: $11K

Oral Chemotherapy: $5K

IV Port Intallation: $7K

IV Chemotherapy: $100K

IV Port removal: $7K

Neulasta Shots(6) $30K

Misc. Labs, Bloodwork, etc: $10-15K(and counting)

Having decent health insurance: Priceless

All this occurred in 9 months.

Go ahead, feelin' lucky,?

First, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Someone who lacks auto insurance may cause injury or property damage to me, potentially causing me financial ruin if I cannot get compensated for the damages. On the other hand, I am not injured and my property is not destroyed when someone without health insurance gets sick.Second, if someone lacks health insurance, this need not necessarily imply that they cannot receive health care. That person will simply have to pay for it. I currently lack food insurance, and I have not yet starved.

mobile9 wrote:

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

chuck d wrote:

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.

you are wrong.

wisconsin does not require auto insurance and traditionally has some of the lowest rates in the country. there are others as well. google it is you want.

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.

You know, the sad thing is that there are probably lots of dumb-asses that think like you, and I'm sure they'll make it to the polls. No politician of either party would vote for anything like this, and the bottom line is that 'these people' are going to be treated no matter what our healthcare system. The only difference is that they guy you vote for will try to save a few tax dollars in exchange for higher insurance/medical costs. While this won't really make medical care any cheaper for you or me, it will insure that the elderly and infirm have to suffer an inordinate amount of petty abuse at the worst time in thier lives. Thanks Buddy.

If true (I did not watch the debate) this is a very interesting flip-flop as Hilary's plan I heard her announce a couple months ago would force anyone who "could afford it" (which would be determined by the gov't, of course) to buy healthcare.

The problem with this is, as with auto insurance, once it is mandatory the prices will go up even more. Further, the gov't will do a lousy job of determining what people can afford it.

It still allows people to free-load as those under the cutoff would be gov-t funded. So now a lot of these people would be fed, clothes, sheltered, and get healthcare all on the public dime. When you don't create personal responsibility, this group will simply continue to freeload. My wife worked in an inner city ER and many of those people were in there 3-4 times a month for various cooked-up reasons because they weren't liable for the cost and the few paying customers foot the bill. Without out-of-pocket liability this would continue.

Good luck with preventative care. Type II diabetes is usually self-induced and docs rarely get people to change their behavior.

The healthcare solution is not simple, covering everyone simply transfers the cost to your tax bill and does not solve the problem of escalating cost. Forget Big Pharma, perscription drugs are only like 9% of the bill, hospital and administrative fees are the bulk.

I hate to have to think like this but until unwarranted care is denied (ie, non-emergency cases turned away at the ER etc), abuses will continue and costs will keep going up.

1. Price discrimination (economists' term, not mine) provides a method to increase coverage and be a heartless capitalist at the same time.2. A system where the consumer's costs are paid by an intermediary (the employer), and bills are submitted by the provider to another intermediary (the insurance company) is hardly a shining example of a free market. Is is any wonder that this is subject to the death spiral of escalating costs? Where is the incentive to improve service or cut cost?3. It is impossible to provide increased coverage for "the poor and or sick" at a constant cost. Either the standard of care will drop for some, the cost of medical care will drop by price controls, or the costs for some will rise. If I had to hazard a guess, we can look forward to all three.

Do you hate the poor and sick? wrote:

It is undeniable that a capitalist approach to health care requires that fewer dollars be spent on care and only the healthiest patients be covered. You cannot provide good care to all citizens and make a good profit too. Profit means more customers who need less care...which is disaster.

kartelite wrote:

It would take an idiot to think non-mandatory auto insurance results in lower premiums.

wrong. you do not appear to understand how premiums are calculated and the process carriers go through to set them.

in states where auto insurance is required, people that auto ins carriers would not otherwise insure (because their driving history makes them a bad risk) must be able to buy insurance. the carrier cannot price the insurance at a level that lines up with the true risk of insuring them.

as a result they get artificially LOWER premiums, since the govt makes it a requirement that the carriers sell them insurance.

someone has to pay for the increased risks of these people and those people that subsidize them are the good drivers who then have to pay more.

in states like wisconsin, a good driver simply purchases Under Insured Motorist Coverage and Uninsured Motorist Coverage which covers the insured driver for damages caused by UN and UNDER insured drivers who carriers either would not insure or for people who chose not to buy insurance.

collectively, the marginal increase in costs for insured drivers purchasing UIM and UM coverage is cheaper than forcing the entire state to subsidize poor drivers.

NH too.

sam w wrote:

chuck d wrote:

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.

you are wrong.

wisconsin does not require auto insurance and traditionally has some of the lowest rates in the country. there are others as well. google it is you want.

Le Coq wrote:

First, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Someone who lacks auto insurance may cause injury or property damage to me, potentially causing me financial ruin if I cannot get compensated for the damages. On the other hand, I am not injured and my property is not destroyed when someone without health insurance gets sick.

Second, if someone lacks health insurance, this need not necessarily imply that they cannot receive health care. That person will simply have to pay for it. I currently lack food insurance, and I have not yet starved.

mobile9 wrote:

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

And yet what happens when a poor, uninsured person has a medical emergency? They're treated and cannot pay for the procedure they just paid for. And who ultimately foots the bill...?

Do you hate the poor and sick? wrote:

Again, find me a health insurance business that will provide reasonable cost care to a sick or risky person. It doesn't exist unless they are employed by a large employer.

One large problem with out system is that it is not in many cases, insurance. It is simply a payment plan for health care, at least for the routine costs. If people had to pay out of pocket for routine care (appointments, medications, etc) they might be better consumers and actually have some cost consciousness. Then insurance could kick in for what it is meant for--unexpected expenses, like Doc Naismith had above. As it is I think we have a payment plan for routine costs with a insurance component on top of it. There is no reason I should be able to go see a doctor for $25 instead of paying the $80-100 that it truly costs. That is an expense which I can budget and self-insure for.