What would be the effect of requiring health insurance?

[DaveJ]

Poll question: What would be the effect of requiring health insurance?

Apparently nobody likes the idea, but from the perspective of someone who is already paying for health insurance, I believe that it has the potential of making things better for us overall. If more people were paying into the health insurance system, my guess is that the system would operate much better.

I understand not everyone can afford to pay the full cost of insurance, but it appears there are many ways of offsetting those costs. In our case, I guess were were lucky -- with the help of my wife I was collecting Medicaid for quite awhile, and I did not lose it until the time came I was able to afford to pay for my own insurance. If our income now becomes much lower, we could pay $40 / month per child for insurance too which isn't that bad.

Moreover, I'm not against taxing the rich, in fact I think they should be taxed up to twice what they are now, but I'm not sure I want to rely on them for my healthcare bills.

Plus, I know people in the insurance industry are mainly sleezbags, believe me, I worked beside them once, but when we had a car wreck, they fixed it.

So my point is, even if it's not the most favored plan, doesn't anyone think it would make healthcare even a little better?

[RB TexLa]

1. Making everyone buy health insurance is taking the idea of "get the rich" and turning it into

"get the healthy! get them! Make them pay! Take their money!"

[Beerboy]

2. I voted 2: I just re-adjust my stock portfolio. n/t.

[sandnsea]

3. Only if affordability is first

A mandate without a mechanism to guarantee affordability and real coverage is useless.

[Beerboy]

5. Mechanism is the way to 100% efficiency,

and it's high time the dirty smokers started paying their fair share, since they're clogging-up hospital beds with their self-chosen diseases that would be better used for deserving citizens.
Why can't the stupid smokers pay another $1 or 3/pack?:shrug:

[sandnsea]

7. Obesity is worse

and drug addicts and alcoholics are the ones clogging up the ER. Everybody needs to contribute to a medical system, at a rate they can afford.

[Thothmes]

42. Dont forget those folks that contracted HIV through unprotected sex.

[nebenaube]

9. ahem...

There are approximately 125 occupational respiratory disorders that lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that are masked by the label 'smokers'. Not to mention the toxic (fiberglass/asbestos) dust in our shools/businesses and homes. Spend your false rage elsewhere. Your health is just as doomed as mine is.

[Beerboy]

23. Then why not, as a condition of getting free health-care,

submit to a test? The smokers won't be covered, they pay, and they self-select to die early. Everyone wins.
If there's a downside, I don't see it.

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. Damned straight! Let's spread those diseases around!

Why should the Evil Smokers get all that health care?

[Deep13]

4. Should we tax people simply for being alive?

Taxes are usually levied on income or property to help insure that there is a means to pay them. This amounts to a head tax. I know it is in the form of payment to an insurer, but it still amounts to a tax since it will be mandate by the Feds.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Its what has happened in the UK since 1948

but I guess we wouldn't express it in that way. By and large our National Health Service is OK. Obviously it isn't privatized though.

[Quantess]

13. What would be the collateral?

[TahitiNut]

6. I'll offer a "policy" that covers only the cost of aspirin and charge $5/month.

:shrug:

We'll see a proliferation of limited-coverage, high-deductible, and/or high-copayment "health care" policies and a host of system-gaming approaches ... driving overhead costs up and reducing ACTUAL coverage while giving the deceitful politicos some camouflage for claiming more people are "covered." As various tax subsidies (assistance, credits, deductions, etc.) are enacted, it'll funnel taxpayer dollars into the coffers of for-profit corporations and be more 'corporate welfare' than individual welfare.

[Quantess]

8. People would ignore the law.

And therefore it would create an unhealthy cynicism for laws. Much the same as 20 year olds feel about not being of legal drinking age.

[napi21]

11. Medicaid would still exist! That would or should be adjusted to cover

all the POOR people. Medicare would still be there to cover the seniors. So far, from all I've read, Hillary's plan sounds like the one that CAN BE PASSED! Sure I like the Kuchinich idea of medicare for all, but I really don't believe that has a snowballs chance in hell of passing!

There are ay to many people who want to still buy at least a supplimental from a private company to cover what THEY want.

I also like the rule that the ins companies would no longer be permitted to cherry pick and would no longer be permitted to refuse to insure for pre-existing conditions!

[LSK]

12. nobody is proposing ONLY requiring health insurance

All plans that do have many other details that help everyone afford it.

Therefore I will not vote on your poll because it is a flawed premise.

[DaveJ]

20. Sorry you feel that way

I'll put you down for number 2 then.

[LSK]

28. I dont think its about adding more money

I think its about reducing costs of the systems, i.e. the costs of covering the expenses of uninsured people.

Having said that, this is an issue that cannot and should not be considered in isolation. All the plans that I am aware of allow to reimburse/help people buy coverage, and also include ways to reduce all the costs of healthcare.

[Warpy]

14. It would create a new criminal class

people whose crime was working jobs that don't pay enough for them to feed and house their kids plus pay an insurance company's profit.

That's why these plans are evil and will never work.

Add to that the fact that for profit insurance will still try to exclude preexisting conditions (even that broken arm your kid had in the third grade, no treatment ever for anything involving that arm even if it's 60 years later), delaying care in the hope you'll die before they're forced to approve it, and denying care altogether plus refusing to pay for anything you get that isn't in some computer model if you do manage to get care.

This is the illusion of coverage for those who can afford it plus entry into a criminal class for those who can't.

It sucks.

[noamnety]

25. Thank you.

I'm starting to wonder if today was a day set aside for DUers to randomly decide the working poor can just randomly take on extra burdens at the poster's whim, and if they can't, perhaps we should fine them, throw them in jail if they can't pay the fine, or maybe set up old-style workhouses where they can "earn their keep."

Sure, it's a "hardship," deal with it - seems to be the slogan of the day here. Do they honestly not get that when there is no slack in a budget, hardship means going without food?

[On the Road]

26. Absolutely

The proposal to force citizens to pay private companies for health care is completely out of touch with the lives of the working class or the practices of private health insurance. It absolutely enraging.

For one thing, a lot of healthy younger people may actually be better off without devoting a huge part of their paycheck to health insurance. And those that do buy it will be sacrificing something else -- which could be trivial but could also be college savings or assistance to elderly parents.

[killbotfactory]

15. The poor would be extorted left and right

High premiums and no coverage.

But hey, problem solved, right?

[mitchtv]

16. It would do nothing

where's that choice?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

17. Is it full, comprehensive coverage, or is it catastrophic b.s. that doesn't really help people? nt

[Vinca]

18. You can't get water out of a rock and requiring everyone to buy

health insurance is essentially that. Plus, assuming everyone has purchased insurance, the insurance companies will still be up to their usual tricks of high deductibles, co-pays and denial of coverage whenever possible. What's so horrible about tacking a few percentage points onto our tax obligation and giving everyone a card that entitles them to healthcare anywhere with the government paying the bill? Same providers, same doctor, different bill payer. No deductibles. No co-pays. No exclusions. No bankruptcy and foreclosure. That's what other countries do and I don't see anyone racing to adopt the current American system.

[Richard Steele]

21. Millions of Americans would become criminals overnight.

Why not just "legally require" everyone to remain healthy and uninjured?
That makes just as much sense.

[harun]

22. It would make things worse because insurance isn't required

to actually cover anything. You can give me 10 bucks and I can say ok, I am insuring you. You can go to the doctor, and I can say, I don't pay for that, end of story.

Health Insurance != Health Care Coverage/Funding

Also a major problem with the system is that the Health Insurance companies pay the doctors. It breads corruption and a status quo of doctors and insurance companies getting richer, while coverage goes down.

[Lance_Boyle]

24. a question for you:

The for-profit insurance industry currently is rolling in money, and sucks tremendously. How is it that pouring MORE money into their hands will make them suck less?

Answer - it won't. They will get richer, and the "service" they provide will remain the same, or suffer.

[hunter]

27. It would make the health care system more rotten and corrupt than it is.

A good portion of the money flowing through the system would be siphoned off to buy favors from politicians, and pretty soon the health insurance industry would be doing whatever it pleased, including rationing care for those who are expensive to care for.

Oh, wait a minute, that's the system we've already got...

If mandatory health insurance is required then we must have the option of a government managed plan open to all. This plan would be similar to single payer plans throughout the civilized world, have very low administrative cost and be in direct competition with the private and pseudo-non-profit health care corporations we now have.

Let them all go out of business or contract with a government-run health system that is the biggest, meanest, and leanest dog on the block.

And oh yeah, ban the advertising of prescription medicines and encourage the government to take by eminent domain the patents of corporations that abuse the patent system to make obscene profits or push drugs for inappropriate, unproven, and often dangerous uses.

No more bullshit.

[porphyrian]

29. What are they going to do if people don't pay, fine them?

It's a logistical nightmare and really just bullshit pandering on a hot topic without affecting real change.

[DaveJ]

31. Maybe they should fine or even arrest people (just saying)

If someone can afford health insurance but refuses to pay, it shows a particular level of selfishness. I do not think people who truly cannot afford it should (or can) be forced, but I know a lot of people with high incomes refuse to pay for it because they would prefer to buy luxury items with the money. They decide to take the risk, but do not take into consideration that in a benevolent society, individuals care not only for themselves but for others. So, yes, considering nobody raising an eyebrow at arresting people for other nonviolent crimes, this option would be no more extreme.

[porphyrian]

33. Where are the resources to do that going to come from?

The reason we have so many uninsured drivers on the roads is that there's no way to police them all until it's too late. Who would pay for it? And even if you could manage it, a person in jail is a drain on the economy, not an asset. Not only are they not paying for health insurance now, they also aren't working and paying taxes. I think that solution would be taking a bad idea to an extreme.

What we need is universal health CARE, not insurance.

[DaveJ]

34. It could work, whether we like it or not...

I don't know about you, but when I drive, I have little concern that if I get in an accident it will be covered. Between my insurance, the insurance I know other people must have, and uninsured motorist insurance, I feel pretty secure about it. Health insurance can operate like that, and will have to if we go in that direction. I suppose the insurance agents jobs can be adjusted to handle payments issues moreso than healthcare distribution issues.

I'm not saying the option we are facing is pretty, but in combination with other initiatives to control costs, it's doable.

[porphyrian]

35. You obviously don't drive in any No Fault states.

Concentration camps are also doable, and are also a bad idea.

[DaveJ]

36. So you don't think we should be required to pay car insurance??

Because, honestly, I think there is little difference. People say having a car is a choice, but really, is it? Most people need a car in order to get to work and therefore in order to survive, so is a car really optional? Yet few people seem complain about mandatory car insurance, yet complain about mandatory health insurance. Why is health insurance so different that it must be free? The money has to come from somewhere, and right now we already have most of the system set up. While immensely flawed, no point scrapping the whole thing when some adjustments can be made to make it work.

That's just the way I see it. I know I'm in the minority here. I just hope something is done, regardless.

[porphyrian]

38. No, I'm saying mandatory health insurance is a bad idea and giving reasons why.

This isn't about car insurance, but I was using it as an example of how mandatory insurance does not work well and how adding another system of mandatory insurance on top of it would be extra stupid.

Universal health care, as opposed to insurance, would not be free - we would pay for it with taxes just like every other modernized nation in the world. And we would be cutting the insurance criminals out of the equation in doing so, which would benefit everyone.

[rucky]

30. Who's going to guarantee the level of care?

Nobody talks about this. I can get a health plan for $50 a month right now. It doesn't cover anything, but I can get one.

And if you have an opt-in system where you can "go private," you're essentially creating two classes of care - controlled by the same companies?? We'll have Ladas and Mercedes when everybody should be riding in a Buick.

[Mike03]

32. What about those of us who prefer to pay cash for the benefits

that gives us in terms of requesting our own treatment rather than allowing our insurance providers to make those vital determinations?

I think there should ALWAYS be an option to pay cash and forego insurance. Blue Cross never helped me when I had emergencies. They would not even subrogate me for an ambulance drive that paramedics ordered me to take against my will.

[sentelle]

37. worse

Health insurance co's (hereafter referred to as 'healthcos') have little competition at this time, they are, in the words of Scott Adams, a 'confuseopoly' (all competitors are about the same, but they attempt to confuse you to make you think one is better than the other). With a mandate (also known as forced contribution to healthcos profits, there is no need to worry about things like 'public good' or 'customer service' or even 'provide services'. You have to pay, period, regardless if healthcos pays the medical bill.

Frankly, I see no reason why I should be compelled to enhance the profitabily of a private company that does not look out for the public interest. In other words, if I am going to get screwed, I at least want a cigarette

[Flabbergasted]

39. I think if they want to discuss mandatory insurance they need to

before hand....

1.) Seriously work on driving down costs.

2.) Show good faith by first insuring all kids.

3.) Credibly indicate that the government will be regulating the mandatory insurance and not the insurance monopoly.

[backscatter712]

40. It would reduce adverse selection.

Adverse selection is the process that leads to people who are covered by an insurance policy being more likely to require services that would be covered by the policy - smokers are more likely to have health problems than non-smokers, thus smokers are more likely to seek health insurance than non-smokers, for example. That's why insurance companies charge smokers a higher rate.

So if we're going to have a policy where everyone is required to have health insurance, I propose a political price for this requirement. That price is that in exchange for mandatory insurance, meaning everyone is required to buy insurance; insurance companies are in turn required to charge a flat rate for that mandatory insurance to all comers. The 65-year-old who needs a quadruple bypass tomorrow pays the same rate as the healthy 25-year-old. The insurers can't jack up rates, charge people different rates, or turn people away for medical conditions (especially preexisting conditions.)

Mandatory insurance does away with adverse selection, so insurance companies shouldn't be able to price their insurance as if they still have to deal with adverse selection. While we're at it, mandate a minimum standard of coverage, so as to eliminate all the lawsuits and arguments over what procedures are covered, what aren't and so forth. As far as I'm concerned, if a doctor deems something medically necessary, it should be covered. The whole point behind insurance, or a single-payer system, is to pool everyone's resources to share risk in a way that the small percentage of the whole that gets hit with something catastrophic is covered. If this plan doesn't do that, what's the point?

Another gotcha is that in order for any proposal like mandatory insurance to be acceptable, it has to be affordable. For the poor (and maybe even large chunks of the middle class,) taxpayer-funded subsidies may be in order so everyone is able to buy in and get health care. Telling the poor "You're required to buy health insurance, but even though it's expensive, we're not helping you." is just plain cruel.

Personally, I don't consider this to be an ideal solution to the insurance problem. I'd rather have something like Kucinich's proposal for universal Medicare. More economically efficient and more humane.

[hunter]

41. Of course they can turn people away.

The most successful insurance companies will be very good at hiding from people who actually might need medical care. Forms will get "lost," people will get transfered into impossible phone trees and left on hold for hours, shunted off into overcrowded governement programs, etc., etc.

Here's how it will work: The healthy guys will think they have the best insurance in the world and that mandatory insurance was a great idea. The guy who needs the quadruple bypass, well, not so good. First they will misplace his evidence of insurance, someone will turn him in as a scafflaw, he will get some extrodinarily huge bills and fines, and by the time it's all worked out, Ooops!, he'll be dead.

It's like cell phone companies, only worse. Everybody always thinks their company is great until they have a problem.