Required purchase of health insurance?

[KaiineTN]

Party affiliations aside, is requiring every American to purchase health insurance really the answer? Isn't there a better answer?

Doesn't that benefit insurance companies considerably? What, something like 46 million new customers all of a sudden?

Can it really be compared to required car insurance? I mean, I have the choice to not own a car, to not drive... I wouldn't have any choice with this proposal. I buy health insurance or I get fined.

Take a step back, try not to think Democrat vs Republican, and honestly, can't we find a better answer than this?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/20/ ... index.html

[Harrison]

It's already started in MA.

[KaiineTN]

Well, that's the way it should be! At the state level, so that if one program ends up not working out, people have the choice to move out of that state. When something is enacted on the federal level, we no longer have that state comparison, and politicians can just scare people into thinking we'd be so much worse off without said program. It's better to leave people with options, and let them decide for themselves what is best--and when they do, they certainly have no right to forcefully impose their idea of what's best on you or I.

[Gypsiyee]

Well, that's the way it should be! At the state level, so that if one program ends up not working out, people have the choice to move out of that state. When something is enacted on the federal level, we no longer have that state comparison, and politicians can just scare people into thinking we'd be so much worse off without said program. It's better to leave people with options, and let them decide for themselves what is best--and when they do, they certainly have no right to forcefully impose their idea of what's best on you or I.

okay, and then what happens when someone who isn't insured comes into your state and gets sick, uses your hospitals and your doctors time and can't pay for it? do you treat them, or kick them to the curb not wanting to waste your precious resources?

I don't understand the fascination with state comparison. this is the united states of america. we aren't all mini separate countries - we're one country, and federal regulation is necessary in some cases.

do you take issue with mandatory car insurance, too? yes, it can be compared, because for the most part the mandatory nature of them is to protect those who aren't at fault. why should my cost go up because you couldn't be bothered with insurance and now you've just wasted thousands and thousands of dollars after you got sick or injured? why should the doctors and hospitals who helped you have to reach into their pockets and soak up the cost? someone has to pay for the recklessness.

out of curiosity... what job do you have? how many hours a week do you work? what's your tax bracket? what's your health insurance like? have you ever seen your rates rise because some lazy jackass didn't take care of themselves, didn't insure themselves, and thought they were invincible? have you ever had to choose between a good job and good health insurance? were you also opposed to SCHIP? Something tells me I already know the answer to all of these questions, but I'd like to hear your truthful answers to gauge how you came to feel the way you do.

[Drem]

yunno i think it's weird that i'm agreeing with flink but he's right. it's stupid. it's not comparable to auto insurance at all. because people can take public transit, carpool, bike, whatever. there are plenty of options for not owning a car.

the only way i can see to opt out of this is to die. it's like they're taxing us for being alive. and with fines of $3800, and even with subsidies for the poor in place, you know there will be a huge group of people that try to dodge this. thus, they'll never go seek healthcare. hardly a "fix" for uninsured people imo

not a fan

thumbs down

[leah]

i didn't read the link (short attention span), but if health insurance is a required purchase, are they going to find a way to make it affordable for those who can't currently afford health insurance? because if it's still going to be expensive as fuck, i don't see how it helps the situation to further monetarily penalize those who can't afford it.

[Gypsiyee]

i didn't read the link (short attention span), but if health insurance is a required purchase, are they going to find a way to make it affordable for those who can't currently afford health insurance? because if it's still going to be expensive as fuck, i don't see how it helps the situation to further monetarily penalize those who can't afford it.

that's the whole reason they want to make it mandatory.

i had a whole long post drawn out and accidentally closed the window, but to answer you I'll reiterate one of my main points.

it's no different than an insurance company charging a business who employs smokers more. The insurance company is saying: hey, you want to employ smokers, that's cool. but they're going to cost me more, so you're going to have to pay more to keep them covered. the government is saying the same thing: hey, I'm willing to extend a cheap option that keeps you from going bankrupt if something happens. but you need to take it so I can keep the costs of healthcare down. if you don't take it, you have to pay a tax so that I'm not putting the costs of your choice on people who were willing to take it.

[Arlos]

The issue you're not realizing is that any time someone WITHOUT insurance goes to the hospital, it raises the taxes and costs for everyone else in the country. Having everyone be covered would lower taxes and insurance premiums for everyone else, as the costs of treating the uninsured would no longer be getting passed on like they are now.

This cost savings will be compounded by the fact that insured individuals are far far more likely to obtain early and preventative care, which is vastly cheaper than when people wait until they have no choice and then go to the emergency room, after things have gotten really bad.

So yes, I'm OK with it, because in cases where people can't afford it, it will be subsidized, and because it WILL lower costs for everyone.

-Arlos

[Naethyn]

Where in the constitution does it say all Americans have a right to healthcare? Furthermore, where does it say Americans *have* to buy healthcare. And no, the argument of having to have insurance to drive does not apply to this situation. Anyone can opt out of driving.

Don't get me wrong. Spending money on healthcare is a far better idea than war. But then again, I'm against any type of spending at all.

[Arlos]

That whole right to life that was in the declaration of independence. Admittedly, the Declaration isn't part of the Constitution, but considering the men that wrote the Constitution also wrote the Declaration, I think it is fair to say their aims and ideals were still the same, yes?

Life, today, is intrinsically bound up in proper health care. Without it, our quality of life drops dramatically, as does our life span, and oft times, our life in all senses of the word ends, if we're badly enough off.

If you're looking for the exact words "health care", you're not going to find them in there, because health care, in the modern sense, didn't EXIST then.

Also, regardless of anything, that money IS going to be spent on health care, period. The way it is spent now, though, the costs are not being split equitably, and there ARE people dying who could be saved. Think of how much better off small business is going to be, and how much competitive advantage in the global marketplace will be regained, when those health care costs aren't being wholly absorbed by the small businesses themselves anymore. After all, every single other western industrialized nation has a national health care system, so their small businesses don't have to worry about their health care costs on their bottom line, while ours currently do. How much of our trade imbalance can we fix if we correct that?

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Where in the constitution does it say all Americans have a right to healthcare? Furthermore, where does it say Americans *have* to buy healthcare. And no, the argument of having to have insurance to drive does not apply to this situation. Anyone can opt out of driving.

Don't get me wrong. Spending money on healthcare is a far better idea than war. But then again, I'm against any type of spending at all.

at what point in the century that the US constitution was written did healthcare even exist? totally irrelevant, imo.

we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we have the unalienable right to life per the declaration of independence - now, it may not be the constitution, but if we're referencing historically relevant documents in the debate of healthcare, that one is equally important in my opinion. If we want to reference that context, one could argue that that right has been routinely and ruthlessly violated by corporate profiteering.

[Gypsiyee]

ffs arlos. poop on your face - he beat my post. f posting from work, always have to try submitting like 4 times before it works

[Arlos]

-Arlos

[Naethyn]

I highly doubt the framers of our constitution would read it the same way. Even so. Say they had.

The out of control, unlimited deficit spending by our government surely amounts to greater loss to the quality of life.

Like I said before, spending money on healthcare isn't the worst thing possible. But we need to ask, is it what we really need right now? After all these years of wars on ideas, should we add another one? The war on terror, drugs, poverty, education, and now.... health care?

The spending has to stop somewhere.

[leah]

The way it is spent now, though, the costs are not being split equitably, and there ARE people dying who could be saved.

this is the part that really bums me out, that there are people for whom the reforms are too late.

[Arlos]

I don't necessarily agree with your premise.

Take a look at some of the historical charts of national debt. At arguably the most prosperous time in US history, the 1950s, their debt as a percentage of the GDP was almost exactly the same as it is today.



As you can see, the time of one of our biggest malaises as a country, the late 1970s, debt was at its LOWEST point since 1940.

That would seem to argue quite strongly against your position.

-Arlos

[KaiineTN]

Jesus christ people, the right to life is not the right to healthcare. You have the right to pursue happiness, not the right TO happiness. If you think you have a right to healthcare, then you are implying that you have a right to the time and labor of doctors, nurses, janitors, etc. You are essentially demanding something from them, and why? Because you're American and you think you deserve it? You have the right to life, not the right to force others to share your responsibility for your own health.

Healthcare is a service that has to be provided by others. You absolutely can not have a right to something like that.

[Harrison]

I think you're perverting the meaning. Badly...lol

[KaiineTN]

[Arlos]

Yeah, and so you're saying a poor person's life is worth less than a rich person's, huh? Because the poor person can't afford to get an illness treated and might die as a result and the rich person could get treatment that not even most people with GOOD insurance policies can? No matter the circumstances of that poor person's life, it's HIS fault for not being rich, and he's shit out of luck, huh? No matter how good a human being he is, how giving, how anything, just because he isn't rich, or even middle class, you're fine with him dying from some curable illness, because you don't think it's right that we, as a society, pitch in to help each other.

Riiiiiight.

That whole philosophy REEKS of entitlement. It comes out of a belief of "i've got mine, fuck everyone else". The only people who promulgate it are those who have never known privation or hardship, and who don't give a rat's ass about their fellow man.

People in a society have a RESPONSIBILITY for the welfare of each other. Every man is NOT an island, we are all interconnected.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

out of curiosity... what job do you have? how many hours a week do you work? what's your tax bracket? what's your health insurance like? have you ever seen your rates rise because some lazy jackass didn't take care of themselves, didn't insure themselves, and thought they were invincible? have you ever had to choose between a good job and good health insurance? were you also opposed to SCHIP? Something tells me I already know the answer to all of these questions, but I'd like to hear your truthful answers to gauge how you came to feel the way you do.

can you answer those, please?

[KaiineTN]

The rich will ALWAYS have access to better care Arlos! If you try to level the playing field, quality will just drop for everyone and the rich will go elsewhere, where quality is higher.

By all means, we can pitch in to help each other, but pitching in to help each other and having the government help on our behalf, by force, are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Government charity isn't charity at all, it is inititated by force and it destroys real charity. Why depend on friends and family when you can depend on government? That's a recipe for overuse and abuse right there. I find it ironic that you say the philosophy of liberty reeks of entitlement when arguing in favor of being entitled to healthcare simply for being alive.

You know, before the government became so involved in the medical industry, no one was out dying in the streets, people still got treated and got emergency care. There were church run hospitals, physicians were more free with their practices, there was plenty of charity to go around. Why are you so quick to throw out your faith in humanity and put it into government?

[Arlos]

Actually, you're completely wrong with how health care used to be. Trust me, my father has been involved in the health care industry since 1971. Not to mention, you completely missed my point.

-Arlos

[KaiineTN]

I am not, even in the slightest sense, responsible for you, and nor are you responsible for me. Collectivism is not superior to individualism.

[Harrison]

Life itself would disagree on a pretty grand scale.

There's a reason predators who travel in packs are more successful. Or herbivores in herds, etc. etc.

As much as I hate supporting shitbags, addicts, and the like, it's an unfortunate side effect to helping those who truly need it. That helps everyone in a prettty significant ripple effect.