"Force Americans to get health insurance"?

Uh, isn't the whole concept of insurance socialistic whether it is public or private. I mean, the chances of you getting out what you put in are low or else the insurance companies wouldn't make money. So you are subsidizing other's healthcare no matter that some private company is scraping profits off the top of your premiums. You pay for health insurance because the loss in terms of your premiums is worth hedging against the catastrophic, but unlikely scenario of a major health crises.

If we had a single payer health care plan (medicare for everyone) taxes would go up, but not by as much as the reduction you and your employer would see in paying premiums. I don't get this idea that the "free market" is automatically better at something like health insurance. HMO's are a bureacratic clusterf**k - I would rather have a bureucratic mess where everyone is covered and premiums are cheaper (and where long-term cost cutting measures such as preventative care and wellness can be instituted rather than short term "please the investors" moneymaking) than the one we have now.

Agreed. The government should not force you to have health insurance. When I was a single young fit guy, I saw absolutely no reason to own a comprehensive medical plan. I kept a catastrophic event plan with very low premiums that only covered anything that would wind up costing me over $100,000 in medical expenses. As far as routine doctor visits (eg. yearly checkup), I just paid for them with money (gasp! what a concept!). When Hillary takes over, this kind of individual decision making will not be tolerated I'm sure.

How does universal health insurance change this, except by shifting the costs to insurers? Ultimately they're passed onto us, though there will of course also be generous mark-ups along the way. On another note...as mentioned earlier, a large portion of health care cost escalation is driven by fundamentally bad design (separating the payer from the service) and the ensuing lack of market forces to improve. It's similar to "cost plus" project management.I could also go on and on about the inefficient operations architecture of health care today. When you compare your experience as a consumer of health care to nearly anything else you purchase, the potential for improvement is dazzling. Can you imagine if FedEx were run like a hospital?

mobile9 wrote:

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...?

Please offer some proof for this assertion.

Elitist wrote:

If we had a single payer health care plan (medicare for everyone) taxes would go up, but not by as much as the reduction you and your employer would see in paying premiums.

Elitist wrote:

We force people to get car insurance, don't we? Everybody thinks they are a better than average driver, but would you really want a world where we weren't forced to carry liability insurance?

as said in some earlier posts, not all states force you to buy auto insurance. for example, wisconsin and new hampshire do not.

wisconsin has the LOWEST average premiums for auto insurance in the country. new yorks premiums are about TWICE what they are in wisconsin. even some other rural states have insurance that is around $1000/year more expensive than wisconsin.

a quick google search showed that uninsured drivers appear to be in excess of 15% of those on the road. so mandatory insurance does not seem to be working out all that well.

so to answer your question, yes i do want to live in a world where people are not required to buy liability insurance, especially since it is saving me more than $1300/year over new york drivers where they live in that world.

Elitist wrote:

I would rather have a bureucratic mess where everyone is covered and premiums are cheaper (and where long-term cost cutting measures such as preventative care and wellness can be instituted rather than short term "please the investors" moneymaking) than the one we have now.

...because governments have such a fantastic record in long-term cost cutting.

On your point that you would rather have government making choices than the rest of society, do you actually think that government employees are on average better at spending peoples' money than they are? There is no more profound and effective way to incentive me to make an intelligent choice than to charge me for it. I have to work to earn money, and I only have so many minutes on this earth. Therefore, every expense I incur is at least sub-consciously weighed against the portion of my life given up for that money.

Elitist wrote:

I would rather have a bureucratic mess where everyone is covered and premiums are cheaper (and where long-term cost cutting measures such as preventative care and wellness can be instituted rather than short term "please the investors" moneymaking) than the one we have now.

i cant think of any examples where the govt took over an industry and the industry became MORE efficient. to the contrary, all the examples i can think of work the other way.

when maggie thatcher came to power in great britain one of the things she did was start a move to privatize companies owned by the govt. she knew that govt promoted wasteful inefficiencies that the private sector could reduce - and it worked.

this has taken place in south american countries as well.

further, these "investors" you deride are YOU. these investors are the people that have money in 401Ks and IRAs and other retirement accounts. their profits are YOUR profits. the investors are not some big shot on wall street, they are police officers, firefighters, teachers, ... anyone who is saving to retire.

when these "ivestors" are not pleased, the reason is that their retirements will be less safe, less comfortable.

profit is not a dirty word.

canada has a similar type of coverage that you desire. it is worth noting, no one in america goes to canada for treatment, but canadians do come to america for treatment. i wonder why...

Well, I reckon it is because nobody would be having to scrape a profit off the top of what is paid.

Look, you conservatives can go crazy with your uttercommitment to the ideology that capitalism is always better at everything (an ideology as deluded as communist nonsense that tries to squeezt the huge comples world into a narrow set of truth claims that must be true at all costs) but the evidence of other developed countries with single-payer plans shows otherwise.

THe amount my employer saves in premiums on me can be paid to me in salary. Also, we would hae a much more flexible workforce if folks weren't forced to stay with an employer for the sake of health insurance (or afraid to start their own business, go back to school, etc. for fear of losing health insurance). If you don't like the national health, you are free to buy some other plan just like you are free to send your kids to private school. I don't have kids and will never have kids and I don't get a a snit about paying taxes to educated other people's children. We live in a society - we aren't just a collection of autonomous individuals.

"as said in some earlier posts, not all states force you to buy auto insurance. for example, wisconsin and new hampshire do not.

wisconsin has the LOWEST average premiums for auto insurance in the country. new yorks premiums are about TWICE what they are in wisconsin. even some other rural states have insurance that is around $1000/year more expensive than wisconsin."

Don't "optional" states like Wisconsin force you to pay a fee if you opt out of auto insurance? Do you really think it is the optionality that makes Wisconsin cheaper than NY? Everything is more exepensive in NY because jobs pay more in NY. The job I work in the midwest pays twice as much in NYC. Car insurance is both mandatory and cheap throughout the south and midwest.

I guess you want a world of lawsuits - without regularing rules, everyone will rely on the courts.

Reckon does not equal proof. And our elected representatives would EVER think of raiding that fund for other projects like bridges to nowhere, strategic bolognium reserves, or the like.

Elitist wrote:

Well, I reckon it is because nobody would be having to scrape a profit off the top of what is paid.

*NEVER*

" $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."

-one bad car accident or traumatic event and you hit that easily.

I'm sure it has already been posted:If a non-insured person has to be treated because his life is at danger, the insured people are going to pay for it.

All studies have shown that people who are on Medicair for example produce lower health care costs because of preventitive work that is done.

I jsut watched "Sicko" last weekend and there is at least 1 person who goes to Canada to go to the doctor.

Also, Thatcher knew not to touch the national health care plan.

I know the conservatives are deathly afraid to watch anything Michael Moore makes but he does make accurate statements, although hyperbolic.

I am pretty sure, not an economist, but health care does not respond to the market approach. If I am out for a run and I get hit by a car I can't choose to not get medical coverage becuase the price is to high. I can't control the demand and insurers know that.

A national single-payer health plan creates a large group and spreads the costs. It also allows the insurer and doctors to focus on prevention.

Better deal for all of us.

Last I checked I'm forced to contribute to the defense budget. So please let me opt out of that too.

Eric B. wrote:

Better yet, let's have some sort of government sponsored healthcare system that covers everyone, not just those at the lowest of tax brackets. .

Yeah. Let's have government run it. Government run plans are always the best!

Yep wrote:

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)

who are you voting for? better yet, will you run for president? i'd vote for you, because i really want to live in a place with these values.

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.

You're wrong, there is no state that does not require auto insurance. Ergo your claim that premiums are higher in states that don't require insurance is also a fantasy of yours.

Wrong. Reread the table. Look at NH.

Citizen Runner wrote:

sam w wrote:

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.

You're wrong, there is no state that does not require auto insurance. Ergo your claim that premiums are higher in states that don't require insurance is also a fantasy of yours.

http://www.insure.com/articles/carinsurance/minimum-coverage-levels.html