AP- Should people be required to sign up? for Health INsurance?

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/health_care_analysis;_ylt=AtMVf4YBi57ChOM_Ei78OF.MwfIE


Analysis: Politicians and health care

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 18, 3:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Question: If government and business leaders do their part to lower the cost of health insurance, should people be required to sign up?


Republican Mitt Romney used to answer yes.

Now he says no.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says yes, but this time promises no new bureaucracies.

The way these and other 2008 presidential candidates answer the "individual mandate" question says as much about their characters, their strategies and the tricky politics of health care reform as it does about the actual policies.

"Individual mandate" is the jargon politicians use to describe health care plans that assume every citizen will enroll in health insurance, often with subsidies and under threat of penalty.

[antigop]

1. What a ridiculous question. HC costs could be "lowered" but still unaffordable for many. n/t

[JDPriestly]

3. You can offer incentives to people to sign up for insurance,

and most people will, but you can't force them to do it. That is why you need a government plan that parallels the private plan. You can simply enroll people in a free government plan and let them decide whether or not to use it. Maybe you can give incentives to get them to use it, say for prenatal care that is of social importance (to save money later on for the care of childhood conditions that could have been prevented). But forcing people to pay for private health insurance? Where in the Constitution does the congress have that power? It can regulate interstate commerce, so it can regulate the private health insurance, but where would it get the power to require citizens to pay private companies for health insurance? No way.

It could institute a public program for the public welfare, something like Social Security and it could give breaks to people who want to keep their private insurance so that the the costs equal out. But the U.S. government cannot require you as a citizen to subscribe to a health care plan any more than it can require you to buy shoes or paint your nails. Regulations on industries are different. They are requirements on how you do business. The U.S. government cannot force a business to do a certain kind of business unless the requirement is an incentive given in exchange for something the U.S. government can give. At least that is how I understand it. Does anyone have a different idea?

That is why Edwards' plan is the better plan. If I understand his plan, he keeps private insurance, but provides a public alternative for those who do not want private insurance.

[durrrty libby]

7. Then they would most likely be eligible for medicaid

[antigop]

11. Uh, no. n/t

[bemildred]

2. If we can make people pay for health care, why not make corporations pay for it?

With taxes? Since we are asking questions.

[Warpy]

4. People should be required to sign up for insurance

offered on a sliding scale according to income. Insurance companies should be required to take all comers and to stop trying to micromanage care to improve their bottom line.

In other words, they can require us to shell out when they require insurance companies to deliver what they promise, not before.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Mandated insurance, under any circumstances, is wrong.

There is no way to structure it that you won't have the for-profit insurance companies rigging the system to increase their profits.

Take them out of the equation from the git-go. If people want to purchanse supplemental insurance from private insurers, that should be their perogative, but basic healthcare should be wholly subsidized by the government, no matter the illnes, pre-existing condition, or user's personal lifestyle.

For what we have spent in Iraq, we could have created a totally funded national healthcare system. If we can find the money for one, we can find the money for the other.

[Warpy]

9. Mandated insurance is absolutely right, but

mandating the support of insurance company profits is wrong. We all know that.

My guess is that this is the only way we'll get national single payer. Insurance companies will squeal like stuck pigs when they have to take all comers and allow doctors, not bean counters, to determine care. Because it will be unprofitable, at least at present profitability rates, they will seek an exit.

That exit will lie in supporting single payer.

[partylessinOhio]

5. No, of course not! This is nothing but a windfall for insurance companies.

Who needs more hardship put upon poor people forcing them to pay the insurance company for health care? We need a government program that covers everyone out of tax monies and war appropriations - no choices - no deductibles - no games - just straight out coverage providing the same coverage to every single person.

We certainly do not need another boondoggle like the Rx program with too much confusion, choices between which is the least worst and donut holes.

Whenever someone offers you choices run like hell because they are going to beat you out of something.

[Donnachaidh]

6. Bingo!

And of course there will always be a way to screw the people who are in need of medical services the most.

Insurance companies have made ENOUGH profit off our backs -- flush THEM out of the system. They totally deserve it.

[EVDebs]

10. Mandatory HEALTH CARE not mandatory insurance. eom