Monday, February 8, 2010
Mandated medical insurance
I know that the subject has been cussed adn discussed time and time again and I know how most people don't like mandated insurance or government mandated medical insurance. However, if government is so concerned about making sure everyone has insurance, why not just pass a law that everyone has to have it and proof of it on hand. They make us insure our cars. Nobody complains about the government REQUIRING us to show prof of insurance every year when we register our vehicles. And we all purchase vehicle insurance through private companies and we can also choose what company we want. Therefore, why doesn't the government make everyone purchase medical insurance along with vehicle insurance. If I get pulled over for speeding, every officer will ask for license, registration, and proof of insurance. What's to stop them from asking for proof of medical insurance also? I don't like the idea of government forcing issues but if they can force us to purchase vehicle insurance (and nobody complains or balks at that), then why not force us to purchase medical insurance and we can choose the policy and company we like (just like vehicle insurance)? Just some thoughts. Those who don't drive almost always still have drivers licenses for I.D. if nothing else. So, the drivers license department could in effect monitor medical insurance cards also in that if you want to update your drivers license, you would have to show proof of medical insurance before you get a state I.D. card or Drivers License. You can't get a Passport without a valid State I.D./Drivers License. Therefore, make us purchase healthcare, but let us use free market and purchase it from a comapny we like or a plan WE like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Mandated car insurance and health insurance are not the same thing.
If you don't want to pay car insurance, don't own a car!
If you don't want to pay health insurance, don't live! Well, of course, that's not a choice.
With a car, one has a choice, and many do live without a car. My family could, if we had to. We live within biking and bus range of our respective places of employment.
Government should not mandate that the people buy a product when there is no other recourse to avoid the mandate (e.g., don't own a car). It results in loss of freedom.
Also, car insurance is only required for liability to protect someone from the neglegence of another. If someone decides not to have life insurance they are only hurting themselves by their own choice.
And you can live without Health insurance also, but it isn't wise just like living without car insurance is not wise. However, if you want to be a good citizen, then you owe it to everyone else to have health insurance because if you don't have it, the public will eventually pay for it. Hospitals charge more than they should because they know that there are some patients who do not have health insurance and so that charge more to cover thier costs. One way or another, everyone is going to have to pay for some peoples choices NOT to have health insurance...so mandating it may be the only way to get everyone to pay for it.
I think it would be good for everyone to take a multivitamin everyday, but we don't mandate that.
I think it would be good for everyone to exercise, but we don't mandate that.
I think it would be good for everyone to own a no-emission electric car, but we don't mandate that.
There are many things that would be good for everyone, but we can't, don't, and shouldn't mandate such things.
Forcing the people to buy a product they don't want (even if it is wise to have) is wrong.
Like Brian says, minimal car insurance is liability insurance, which protects others from your bad driving, but you are not obligated to have no-fault insurance and other add-ons. That's because you take responsibility for your own damage in such cases.
Well, I'm leaning towards Doug on Health Care issues. Some thing has got to be done and the Republicans aren't going to do anything. I disagree with "government RUN" healthcare but I do think it ought to be required that everyone have some form...even if it is for a minimal catastrophic or emergency care insurance policy. At least that ought to be required. I have had an ailment that is quite painful for over a year but I haven't gone to the doctoe because I don't have insurance to help pay for it. I live with it, keep it to myself (and immediate family) and I struggle in pain. But, if required, I would be willing to purchase an emergency care plan. Anything above and beyond that would be my choice as you stated. So, even if extended healthcare was not mandated, I wouldn't buy it because I can't afford it. I just think that if people had to have emergency care insurance at a minimum, it might help lower hospital care charges. Some thing has to be done and Republicans aren't going to do ANYTHING. So, I at least applaud the Democrats fro trying something...I think they tried to bite off too much though and so it is going to fail. Can't eat an elephant at one sitting.
I am sorry to hear about your condition.
Nevertheless, government mandated insurance is still going to cost you, and will probably cost you more than you think.
I must vigorously disagree with you that Republicans aren't going to do anything. This blaming of Republicans is unseemly. The Republicans have absolutely no power to do anything. The health care plan currently before us has not been passed because Democrats are bickering among themselves. Blame squarely lies with the Democrats who have the power to do anything they want, but yet have done nothing.
The Republicans have put forth plans (i.e., tort reform, liberalizing insurance plans beyond state borders, etc.), but they have been rebuffed by Dems at every turn and shut out of meetings. Obama claimed to usher in a new era of bipartisanship, but the Dems have been totally partisan in the formation of the health care bill.
I don't know where to begin and I am very, very pleased that we are discussing it.
First of all, I wish Deric well and I am very sorry to know that you are struggling with pain. I know how trying that is both from personal experience, watching Nick (TB and related others), and Grandma Wortham (shingles). I have so much to say on this, I'll have to write a new post.
Alan's argument is logical but does not respond to other areas wherein the government intervenes for our own good.
The government does indeed mandate us to do certain things for our own good regardless of the effect on others. The notion is that what is good for us creates a better society in which all can live better.
Motorcyclists must wear a helmet.
We must all wear seat belts in cars.
If you have guns and children, there are now storage laws regardless of attitudes regarding the freedom to choose for one's one family.
All children must be schooled even if it costs you something to send them to school.
The government does intervene. Required medical insurance ought to be mandated because as Deric correctly points out, we all pay for the negligence of others. A mandate to purchase health insurance is in essence a way of forcing all to be responsible for themselves and a way of freeing the rest of us from being responsible for them. If we were content to let the suffering suffer, the dying die, the maim to remain maim and unable to work, I would say fine, it's their fault, their predicament. But that is not the world we have chosen to create for ourselves, as a result, Deric is right: we all pay in some way to right these wrongs/misfortunes. Let's force everyone to participate in their health care.
I say that if it's good enough for Mitt Romney (who has trumpeted his part in creating such a requirement in Massachusetts), then it's good enough for the entire country!
Just because government mandates things now does not necessarily make it right. Nor does mandating something ensure that it will happen. There are many drivers without insurance, there are many drivers who drive drunk though it be illegal, and mandating the wearing of seat belts does not mean that everyone does. Therefore, there would most certainly be those (especially the young) who will balk at buying insurance. The irresponsible will always be with us.
I do agree that those who want insurance but can't obtain it due to a preexisting condition should be allowed to purchase insurance. This is one of the things Republicans happily agreed with. Those opposing mandating health insurance are not saying that they don't care if the sick suffer and die. Lawmakers should be endeavoring to make health insurance affordable and accessible, but am against mandating it.
Which of those requirements ought we not mandate? Of course we will have those who ignore the mandates, but they pay if they get caught thereby decreasing the chance of offending, increasing the rate of compliance and insuring better results for society as a whole.
But still, if one refuses to buy it: what consequences follow? None! You still get some level of health care via the emergency room. We all pay via higher premiums. This conundrum must still be solved. What do Republicans propose? I agree that Republicans do not want to see people dying on the street all the while walking away. As I said, we don't live in that society, gratefully. So what to do, if no mandates? What?
So how to make it affordable as you say? That too is a conundrum Republicans do not offer a solution for: their only response is free market action will bring the price down. Guess what, that has not proven to be true. The price has only, only increased. We are not talking about supply/demand/quality like gasoline. The Dems are offering solutions, albeit solutions that don't seem to please, but if one thinks logically, there solutions seem to be the only ones possible. They suggest making it affordable via mandates with subsidies, via single payer, via increased intense insurance regulation, all refused by Republicans. So
just what do Republicans propose to make it affordable?
I make this argument continually: health care is not a commodity. Like education, fire and police protection, public utilities, national defense, product safety regulation, health care is not just a product subject to the wims of the market of supply and demand. Why? Because market solutions belong to products that are not essential to everyday survival. The government recognizes this by subsidizing food production and by subsidizing all of the above life essential services. I just can't understand why health care is any different?
The reverse argument ought to clarify matters: if we cannot make health care a government controlled matter, why not privatize all of the above services? You want fire protection, police protection, education for your children? Buy it! Otherwise don't complain when you've got no one to call...but oops! We do gratefully buy all of the above already...via...taxes! Why oh why not something equally as vital: health care?
Again, I must disagree on at least one point. The MSM constantly drums into peoples heads that the Republicans have offered nothing. I have come to the conclusion that we no longer have fair-minded journalism.
Here, again, is what the Republicans have proposed.
1. Tort reform
Frivolous lawsuits increase the cost of health care for all. Malpractice insurance drives doctors out of the health care field, resulting higher pressure on other doctors to take up the slack.
2. Allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines (like car insurance, which everyone seems to think is a good comparison).
3. Guarantee access to affordable health care for those with pre-existing conditions.
And several other proposals which anyone can read for themselves at:
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf
The fact is Republicans have not even been allowed to participate meetings for drafting the health care bill. So much for Obama's new era of bipartisanship!
I acknowledge your point that health care insurance is not like many other commodities, but that does not mean that the free market cannot provide it in an economical manner if only the government would get out of the way (i.e., allow insurance to be purchased across state lines). When government gets involved, you can be sure that costs will go up.
I also acknowledge that there are some things that the government should take care of, namely, police and fire, but there is no mandate that I use these services. If someone steals my car, I will likely call the police, but there is no mandate that I do so. I use city water, but there is no mandate that I do so. I could purchase water and haul it home myself.
I admit, health care may indeed be something that the government could provide to those below a certain income level (which most states already do, btw) - but a mandate? No, that's overkill and too overbearing.
You three Republican health care points are well taken but not necessarily original from Republicans. The question of tort reform, which I support, has been around for a long time including during the Bush years, they didn't seem sufficiently interested in it then to to get it passed when they had the majority. Besides, tort reform, although important, counts for a very small percentage of the overall medical costs. Passing it would be great, but not sufficient to bring real change.
The Dem and Republicans both claim to support required acceptance of those with pre-existing conditions although I have not heard how the Republicans plan to make that affordable, the Democrats have spoken loudly and often of government subsidies to make such coverage affordable (I can think of no other way except to force the insurance companies to swallow the loss like we force hospitals to do), so how do Republicans plan to make it affordable?
I yield on the value of allowing insurance companies to trade across state lines. I don't know what the argument is against such an idea that appears to me on its face to be a good one. Even then, I don't think that such competition would bring down the prices. Not in this business.
Equally the right wing media has pounded out the idea that Republicans were not welcome at the table while MSN and others give 'stories' stating convincingly the contrary. Frankly, at this point, it depends on whom one chooses to believe.
You are of course right that you do not have to buy water or call an officer. But you pay for it anyway via taxes. In the case of water you pay taxes for the infrastructure regardless of you choose to turn off the faucet. This is knit-picking, but no city or town will allow you to do as you wish with sewage which is incorporated in the water bill. But hey, we will in a world where we all readily accept these mandates.
Your argument along these lines is strong and correct, but just not practical to the discussion given the way we all choose to live.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Just one note of clarification: The purpose of allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines is to expand the risk pool. A larger risk pool leads to lower insurance rates.
I don't know everything and I certainly am not as well versed as Alan and Doug on these matters. I just know that I need health insurance for me and my kids, I don't have any. But, I pay my taxes, pay my mandated car insurance and don't think twice about it...because if I choose to have a car, and I do, the government REQUIRES me to have it covered...at least minimally. Therefore I pay it and I am glad I have it. We hit a deer last fall and our insurance covered it all but the %500 deductable. It was worth it to have insurance. If the governement mandated health insurance, I am sure I would buy it and I would feel better about getting to the kind of doctor I need because I would have insurance to help pay for it. I would have gone earlier. I am leaning towards Doug on this one.
Post a Comment