What's wrong with making it mandatory to buy Health Insurance ?

Well, if we want to compare the past with the present, it's important to note that money is worth a lot less these days. Sure, they didn't have iPods and such, but it didn't take two parents working 50 hours a week to be well off either. It's a balance. How hard should a person HAVE to work to have a middle American class lifestyle these days?

I live in southern Arizona. Not a lot of factories here. We do have call centers, where I currently work. I work hard and make good stats, but I see people with less quality and stats than mine being promoted before me. It frustrates me a bit. I owe about 3500 dollars to family to pay back before I could even begin to think about learning a new trade, and I would need a car as well, as I currently do not have one.

Those are pretty poor odds for a person to be up against, and I'm too tired to risk many years of hard labor just for a CHANCE at a better future.

 

People went with less back then and were generally poorer. The decline in poverty in the US after WW2 nearly mirrors the increasing rate women began working. Nearly all products cost less labor then before, other then regulated and government meddles industries.




I live in southern Arizona. Not a lot of factories here. We do have call centers, where I currently work. I work hard and make good stats, but I see people with less quality and stats than mine being promoted before me. It frustrates me a bit. I owe about 3500 dollars to family to pay back before I could even begin to think about learning a new trade, and I would need a car as well, as I currently do not have one.

- have you asked for a raise? If you know you make the company money they probably know too, and are just waiting to be asked. Most people won't offer a raise if they don't have too.

Those are pretty poor odds for a person to be up against, and I'm too tired to risk many years of hard labor just for a CHANCE at a better future.[/QUOTE]

The recession won't last forever. Now that we have stalemate, things will begin to improve until obamacare, and then it will get bad and maybe better a few years later.

 

Yes, I have. I was told raises were set in stone by corporate. Basically, they give a raise to each employee every year based on their stats. The problem is, the highest raise I have ever been given (and at the time it was the best raise the call center was giving out that year) was .36. The normal amount of raise is around .14 to .18 more. The raises don't even keep up with the rising costs of living, let alone give me enough to save. One of the 'perks' of working for big business.

The recession doesn't have to last forever, you know. Another decade of the current situation, and I, and many, MANY others, will be screwed quite literally. I've been cutting back for a little while now already, and it won't be too long until I don't have any money to spend on anything but the bare bones minimum standards of life. And it will get worse still. I'm worried and wondering if I can handle it. And that's to say nothing of my family. What kind of future will my nieces and nephews have? Their parents raise them to take education seriously, but will that be enough?

 

"
[h=2]What's wrong with making it mandatory to buy Health Insurance ? "[/h]
rico

 

Inflation is caused by government. For now, keep the job and if we recover from obamacare there will be good jobs again.

Just trying to be optimitic. The government can't steal from the economy at this level forever.

 

Currently every tax paying citizen pays healthcare for: All government and State employees health insurance, Veterans insurance, Medicaid and Medicare insurance plus now with the mandate, our own insurance coverage.

 

There's nothing wrong with making it mandatory but I just hope they make it more affordable especially for those people that can't really afford to have it. Sometimes even if you're healthy and no sickness at all, your premiums is still high.

 

This argument is totally flawed - the 28 year racking up medical bills in a hospital who doesn't have health coverage doesn't have any affect in premium increases. Why because his bill was never sent to a health insurance company. If the 28 year old has any income from employment that is above the 200% PPL - that person is responsible for the bill and if he can't pay for it, it goes to a collection agency. The hospital is out this money if not collected and this debt cannot be collecting from the state. They won't raise cost for this reason since health insurance companies are only going to pay what the contract says they are going to pay.

Now if this person earned below the 200% level then the hospital would automatically sign him up for Medicaid and the state would take care of. If that person has no income and therefore cannot qualify for any insurance coverage the state will pick up a percentage of it and the hospital writes off the rest.

 

So the problem is that we have federal rules on our medical system that makes 'freeloaders' able to abuse it, and rather than address that we need more government to fix a problem created by government.

Yup, no hope of having a legitimate discussion on this with you

 

Car insurance covers the damage caused to another individual and/or their property, not a person's own self.

Car insurance is not federally mandated either, the states' decide their own laws - some states like New Hampshire do not require mandatory liability insurance. So you know not what you speak of.

Given how often I see a doctor, I'd pay much less simply paying for the visits in cash than I would if I took out a private health insurance plan.

Why not have the federal govt conduct routine inspections in your home to make sure you're brushing and flossing each night?

No one's forcing you to pay - you can't be denied a visit to the ER, and you can't be jailed for not paying your bills. The worst that could happen is you could be sued and/or have your credit score trashed, but in most states I don't believe that your wages could be garnished over medical debt.

So no one's forcing you to pay if you don't like it.

 

Perhaps for that year but the next year the hospital will raise its rates to cover all its unreimbursed expenses, including what it could not recover from that 28 year old. It might get 10-20% of it back by selling the debt to a collection agency and maybe get another 20-30% from the state Medicaid fund if the 28 year old was indigent but that is unlikely in most states.

Hospitals do not write off much if they don't have to and will carry it on their books for years. What they will do is pass the cost onto whatever other customers they can, insurance companies, state and local governments, the Feds.

The idea that people without insurance have no effect on increasing insurance rates that everyone else pays is completely ridiculous.

 

If everyone bought a Chevy then economy of scale would make Chevys less expensive to make. Maybe the government should force everyone to buy a Chevy? Is that not the same argument you're making? How does potentially saving some people money justify forcing other people to do things against their will?

 

I worked in healthcare for years doing collections and contracting physicians with all of the insurance companies so I know for a fact if the practice decided to raise their charge rates it has no affect on the participating insurance company. The health contract dictates what they will pay according to the fee schedule for the provider of service. The insurance company only has control over the population that is enrolled under their plan. A person that has no insurance and is unable to pay is the provider of care revenue lost.

It is not true that providers of care will keep those unpaid accounts on their books for years. They are usually turned over to a collection agency after 90 days of non payment. Hospitals submit their non insured no pay accounts to the state for a percentage of reimbursement since the law requires them to treat them.

 

If nobody will insure that Chevy because it's not profitable to do so you still won't be able to drive it.

My mother and sister get medicaid and medicare. Without doctors who take it who cares they might as well have nothing at all.

 

This is totally about forcing people to do things against their will. It is about forcing people who are completely clueless about the expense of maintaining the environment that they live in to directly contribute some small amount to maintaining a particularly expensive corner of it.

It costs a lot of money to maintain a health care system that will treat all people who come for care. Over the years the government has spent many $100Billions to pay for the care of millions of people who are unable or unwilling to pay for the care they receive from the health care system. As a partial remedy to the ever increasing burden on taxpayers to pay for these free riders the government has decided that everyone should pay at least something in direct support for the health care system so that it will continue to be available to help them when they are in need.

There is no one who does not need health care at some point in their life. Just because some people do not want to pay for the health care system does not mean they will not use it because eventually everyone does. People who live among others do not have total free will but must temper their actions to not exceed the bounds of behaviour that the public they live among will tolerate. In this particular case the perception that there are way too many people taking advantage of the charitable impulses of the public to avoid paying for their own personal health care has led to a decision that requiring everyone to pay at least something for health insurance is the best way to deal with these free riders who wilfully refuse to pay for maintaining a health care system that they will inevitably avail themselves of at some time in their life.

The health care system will save your life, and may try its best to continue it if you ever find yourself in its care, willingly or not, depending on your insurance.

 

People need to be able to make decisions. The government sucks at almost every social welfare program.

 

Still, we NEED government to implement programs to maintain social welfare. Not having such in place to some degree, is just being unprepared (and that is ultimately foolish).

 

"People who live among others do not have total free will but must temper their actions to not exceed the bounds of behaviour that the public they live among will tolerate."​

Muslim fundamentalists use that same rationale when they beat women in the streets for showing their ankle. I'm not sure that I'm completely convinced of the logical soundness of your argument.

More to the point, how does forcing people to pay for other people's health care solve the problem of people having to pay for other people's health care?

 

Yes, they do just as Christian fundamentalists push for laws in the US that make same sex marriage illegal and seek to criminalize abortion, forcing their peculiar views on everyone else through legal statutes whether they agree with them or not. The only difference is that the Christian fundamentalists are forcing millions of Americans who do not hold their tenets to conform to their religious views by highjacking the law and judicial system while the Muslim fundamentalists are limited to threats of extrajudicial terror.

Many parts of the US are becoming a mirror image of Iran, democracy highjacked by religious fundamentalists.

It is really not about forcing people to pay for other people's health care since we have been doing that for a long time. It seems that you are unaware that government pays for about 48% of the health care services delivered in the US, and a lot of that is spent on people who could afford private insurance but make the wilful choice to not do so, get injured or sick, lose their ability to make income, become indigent and force the government to pay for their care.

What are the choices here?
We could just choose to deny any and all care to everyone without insurance and let them die on the streets but the public is not willing to support that position, being mostly Christian and all that.

We could choose to require care for everyone, which is the Christian thing to do and we do so with limits, which are paradoxically more draconian in states with greater Christian fervour.

So you tell me, what should we do?

 

WOW!! You seem to actually get it (though your insistence that Muslim fundamentalists are limited to extrajudicial terror exhibits ignorance of the way things operate in many ME nations).

Now, how is you forcing your peculiar views on everyone else any different than the fundy Christians and Muslims doing the same? Let me guess, because your peculiar views are "right" and theirs are "wrong"?

I realize that ~65% of healthcare expenditures in this nation are government expenditures and most Americans do not partake of the services provided by that huge bar tab. I also realize that, in a narrative reminiscent of a bad Vaudeville play, the relatively high expenditures is one of the reasons that is used for the government to step in and "fix it". Perhaps you didn't realize these things?

Also, there is nothing Christian about forcing other people to do that which you think is right. That's the type of thinking exhibited by the fundamentalist Christians that you were just complaining about. You want to be a good Christian then use your money, resources, and time to help others. There is nothing magnanimous about stealing from Peter to give to Paul.

 

Single Payer and/or Universal Healthcare NOW!!!

 

Health care would not be nearly as expensive as it has become, nor as dangerous, if it were not for the medical monopoly we are existing under.
The monopoly enforced by many laws, forces doctors to ignore many cures, and to impose the statutory cut, burn or poison "therapy".

America, the world's greatest nation can't afford to help the American people with their health care needs, and wants to force everyone to pay tons of money to a "medical insurance" racket.

At the same time, this same "America" recently destroyed the nation of Libya who was paying everyone 1000$ a month, whether you worked or not, and provided health care and interest free loans for houses and such.

Could it be that we are under the Curses of the Law, where those who hate you rule over you? Leviticus 26:17

 

I agree with you that at some point in our lives we need healthcare services. The problem is all those years of not needing healthcare and paying for it year after year in premiums doesn't benefit you at all if you find yourself no longer employed with that company. Why do think that so many people once they turned 50, lose their job because now they need medical care but the employer feels they are now too expensive to keep them employed?

 

The difference is that their views are intolerant and mine seek to remove intolerance.
I could care less what people believe but I will not tolerate any imposition of belief, especially through the law.
In a world, or nation where there are many people of different belief only conflict can arise from the imposition of any particular belief.

Actually, government expenditures pay for a little more than half of all health care, but do so with about 20% of all the money spent. In other words the private health care industry consumes 80% of the health care money while providing less than half the care. And yes, just like a bad vaudeville play the hero with the white hat needs to ride in to save the poor widow and her children from getting fleeced by the evil charlatan.

There is nothing Christian about allowing people to die because they cannot pay for health care in the most Christian nation on the planet, which has more than enough wealth to afford such charity. In fact the christian fundamentalist community is beginning to fracture under the pressure of those who hold that Christian values of charity, humility and the responsibility of those who have much to support those who are disadvantaged are more important than tossing them overboard to support efforts against gay marriage and abortion.

There is nothing magnanimous, or Christian, about allowing great wealth to not go to helping the poor.

 

I pay NOTHING at the point of delivery for anything from a visit to my GP, right up to major surgery. For that privilege I pay somewhere in the region of £50/month. Furthermore any ongoing, non-acute care is also free of charge. I have no fear of bankruptcy from massive bills, or concerns that pre-existing conditions will exclude me from getting insured.
Face it, Americans are getting royally shafted by venal, for-profit insurers who care nothing for the health of those insured.