Yes, everyone should have health insurance

[question everything]

During the primaries last year, and now, there are some who strongly object to "forcing" everyone to carry health insurance. Ideally, we should have a single payer system where everyone is automatically enrolled.

But we don't, and are not going to any time soon. So unless you can give the hospitals, where you are suddenly rushed a blank check, or unless you are ready to be turned down, or discontinue your treatment when you can no longer pay, you have to carry insurance.

Why should I continue to pay outrageous premiums because the hospital has to cover your treatment by charging my insurance? Or because you use expensive ER visits instead of office ones?

And why should my state taxes - that support Medicaid - be used to pay for your treatment since you chose not to carry insurance?

If you drive a car, you have to have insurance. If you have a mortgage, you have to carry insurance. Why should you not carry health insurance?

Granted, you may not be able to afford one right now; you probably have a "pre-existing" conditions. Adressing these limitations are two things that even the Republicans agree.

And, really, as a Democrat who accepts that we should look outside our immediate circles, how can you justify not demanding that everyone will carry health insurance?

OK, start piling the "U"s.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Let me guess, you have coverage through your job or the government.

Right?

[question everything]

3. Neither. I have been paying for my own for more than 10 years now

getting tired of switching carriers when I lose a job, and getting tired of my employer switching carrier.

And since 2002, my premiums have doubled.

And I have $1500 deductible, which I thought was high, until I read about $5K and $10K. In reality I was considering carrying only a catastrophic coverage - if one is available - since it appears that I pay more in premiums than in actual out of pocket.

I may consider this next year, especially if the annual 20% increase in premium will continue.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. So think about the average young, healthy uninsured person for a minute

You know, that "deadbeat free rider" that the people who support mandates so love to disparage and demonize. Typically, he or she will be working in a lousy low wage service job with no benefits, possibly just a hair under full-time so the employer isn't required to give benefits. This person may have a buttload of student loans to pay off. He or she shops around for individual policies and finds that the only ones that are remotely affordable are catastrophic ones with anywhere from a $2K to 5K deductible, in addition to the premium that may run $150 to $200 a month for the young healthy person with no preexisting conditions, and copays. The young person does the math and realizes that it makes no sense to get insurance when he or she will be out of pocket thousands of dollars before the "coverage" kicks in. It's a perfectly rational decision.

But hey, who cares about pissing off young working people? It's not like we'll ever need their votes. :sarcasm:

[question everything]

73. The idea behind demanding that everyone carries insurance

is that an affordable one, by the government, will be available for people like the one that you describe.

On the other hand, I can think of similar people like the one you describe wearing the most recent shoes and clothes that Nike or A&F offer, getting the largest flat screen TV, flashing the recent fashion in watches, paying a lot for an expensive cell phone "plan" and going out to bars and restaurants on a regular basis. I have none of this. Such flashy consumptions and being one of "the guys" is more important to them than purchasing health insurance since, hey, they are young and healthy.

[Hello_Kitty]

86. This seems to be the talking point du jour about the uninsured.

Did it ever occur to you that many of those young people flashing expensive gadgets and clothing HAVE insurance? 18 to 24 year olds are the least likely group of adults to be covered but the majority of them (around 70%) are actually covered, either through their employers or their parents.

As for the rest, why should healthy young people be forced to buy craptastic catastrophic insurance policies that will require them to pay thousands out of pocket before the coverage kicks in anyway? It makes no rational sense whatsoever and you wouldn't do it either if you were in their position. And I'm sorry, but forcing them to buy insurance will probably not make much of a dent in your costs. There are about 8 million of these young "deadbeats". There are 5 million who are "uninsurable" due to their preexisting conditions or weight or whatever who will, ostensibly, also have to be covered in a mandatory "universal" system. Do the math.

[DrToast]

2. If you're going to force people to have a service...

...then it's so essential that the government should provide. At the very least, it should be for non-profit. Why should my paychecks go to line the pockets of the insurance companies?

And your analogy to auto insurance is a poor one. You don't have to have auto insurance. You have to have auto insurance if you want to drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can live just fine without driving a car.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. The auto insurance analogy also fails because the insurance you required by law to have is liability

You are not required to have insurance for yourself or your car (though the bank may require it if you have a loan), you are required to carry insurance that protects OTHER people and their property in order to be granted the (voluntary) privilege of driving. You have no choice over being alive.

And as you say, if we are going to require it of people, it should be provided by the government. If you have children you are required to send them to school but there are free public schools available to you - at least until the rabid right dismantles public ed.

[question everything]

9. I have often compared a universal care to public education

Everyone is accepted. No child is excluded based on ability to pay, or based on "pre-existing" conditions. And we support public education with our taxes, even those of us who have no children at school. And if one does not like public education, one is free to pay for a private one with own funds.

This is why I don't understand the debate about "how to pay for it." I will gladly send my premiums to the government in a form of tax to assure that no one will every turn me away.

Replace all of our premiums with taxes and let the ones who want to purchase private health insurance do so on their own. This will also remove the unhealthy connection between a job and access to health care.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Now you are arguing for single payer. I'm for single payer too.

Your OP, however, argues for mandated private insurance. Which is rather like mandating that parents send their children to private schools.

[question everything]

74. I am for a single payer; I am for ending illness and poverty

I am for a peace all over the world. But the reality right now is that single payer is not even in the horizon.

So let's start with a government assistance to the young and the healthy working poor who will be part of the pool. And let's eliminate the "pre-existing" limitations on access to insurance. And then, perhaps, it will be easier to move to a single payer.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. Absolutely the preexisting condition limitation should be removed

But, that means that costs may go up. That's why I don't understand why people think simply mandating the 45 million (or whatever) uninsured will bring down costs. I suspect the opposite may be true, considering that number includes a large percentage of people whose health problems currently preclude them from coverage. I would think that the inclusion of those people could partially, or even totally, offset the savings gained by including the young healthy uninsured. I would be interested to know if anyone has done a study about the use of the health care system by the uninsured, and who among them causes the most expense. Is it the young healthy uninsured people breaking their legs or is it older, sicker uninsured people?

[LooseWilly]

15. Hmm... that's a thought.

You point out that "you are required to carry insurance that protects OTHER people and their property in order to be granted the (voluntary) privilege of driving."

So here's a health related insurance question... What about the idea of carrying "liability health insurance"?... so that I can smoke, drive drunk, assault annoying people... and as long as I can present insurance to cover any "provable damages" then I won't have to cover liabilities "out of pocket".

Now that's some reform I can get behind... :tinfoilhat:

Of course, your point of not "having" to drive vs. the idea of "not having to... health?" perfectly describes the difference between auto & health insurance mandates. Too plainly and simply to be comprehended, I sometimes think.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. There was some politician recently who proposed taxing unsafe sex!

He was half joking (I hope) and was a rabid fundie, but the more I thought about it the more appeal the idea has. ;)

[LooseWilly]

24. Hehe... as long as the taxes covered visits to the "clinic"...

I could live with that.

I suddenly remember Jon Stewart's most explicit question of healthcare reform: "Will it cover gonorrhea?"...

[CTyankee]

5. So if you avoid paying into the Obama system, you are entitled to the same care as people who do?

Is this what you are saying. Please tell...

[DrToast]

8. What I'm saying is that nobody should be forced to pay private insurance companies. nt

[CTyankee]

13. OK, Dr. Toast. If you can't afford to pay, you would be eligible for subsidy.

If you are too poor to be eligible for subsidy you could go on the expanded Medicaid program.

What about this do you not understand?

[DrToast]

16. WTF are you babbling about?

How is that in any way relevant to what I wrote?

[CTyankee]

19. Well, what are YOU babbling about? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Because they think 'subsidy' is a magic word.

Like if you don't have enough money to pay your bills now, adding another bill and saying "but we'll give you a 50% discount!" puts money in your pocket that you didn't have to pay that new bill. I know...:crazy:

[DrToast]

23. Even if there are subsidies

I don't think people who can afford it without subsidies should be forced to buy insurance from a private company.

Like I said, if something is so essential that everyone must have it (like Education), then the government should provide it. It should be able to pump up the stock prices of insurers.

[CTyankee]

26. do you think you get "education" for free? You pay for it in TAXES.

Also, who pays for you if you get away with avoiding health care insurance and you wind up in the ER because you get hit by a car?

[DrToast]

29. My god, how dense are you?

PUBLIC EDUCATION IS AVAILABLE.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT FORCE YOU TO BUY A PRIVATE EDUCATION.

DO YOU NEED THIS SPELLED OUT ANY CLEARER?

[CTyankee]

37. And if you are hit by a car and are taken to the ER and you haven't paid into thesystem

for health insurance, who pays YOUR bill? You?

I won't hold my breath for your reply...cuz I don't think you have a very good answer...

[Bluenorthwest]

39. The Insurance of the driver at fault in your scenario

The law mandates auto insurance. That driver is covered. The ER is paid for by that. The end.

If not an auto injury, or workman's comp, the people I know who do not have insurance simply pay the doctor when they go, or pay the emergency room. A few hundred bucks every few years is easier than finding a few hundred every month to prop up profits for pirates. Is that hard to grasp? People go get a service and they pay for it. Horrible stuff, that.

[CTyankee]

44. Of course! No one EVER has a problem with their hospital bill after a stay in the ER!

Silly me. Never heard of such a thing, really. It never happens. Something catastrophic to people's incomes due to ER bills is just a fantasy...

[CTyankee]

45. And if the driver of the car that hits you is uninsured and you are broke?

Your whole argument breaks down right here. If you "can't afford" health insurance, how can you afford a big ER bill, hmm? A few hundred bucks a year? Where does that come from if you can't afford a subsidized health insurance because you simply cannot stretch that paycheck one cent further?

[Bluenorthwest]

46. So you are saying that the auto insurance mandate does not work?

Yet the health insurance mandate will? The last health insurance my uninsured friend looked at would cost 600 a month, the guy makes about 1400. So unless he spends in excess of 7 grand a year on doctors, he is ahead of the game.
Many people do not use the same sort of medicine the corps promote as primary treatment. And many people can manage to pay a few hundred when they need who can not pay a few hundred each and every month.
I once knew a CT citizen who did not work for an Insurance Company because she was Katherine Hepburn. The rest were not Katherine Hepburn.
The folks who want to force others to pay for for profit insurance never remember to share what they do for a living. Why is that? Ms Hepburn?

[CTyankee]

47. I don't know where your numbers are coming from but it is telling that you didn't answer

my question.

Oh well. Look, I don't like private insurers being in on this either. But if Obama has figured out a way to cover just about everybody and that means we all pay in according to our means, then it is better than what we've got. The alternative is very, very scary and a lot worse for you...

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Boo! Fear! Scare!

How will it be worse for me? Pleas do share! What plan do I have now? How much do I pay for it? Are you a psychic?

[CTyankee]

52. Your president has laid this out for you. In his press conference last week

he went through each point where we are facing disaster in our system. Since he did it so well, why don't you avail yourself of what he said. Then you can set about rebutting it point by point.

He's already said if you like your plan you can keep it. If you don't you have options you can choose from and subsidies will be generous.

Let meknow if I can serve you anything else on a silver platter.

[Hello_Kitty]

58. That was before the Senate stripped the public option

To be fair, Obama has indicated that he will veto any bill without a public option so I'll keep my hopes up. But the point of the public option was to be a cheap option and to create competition and incentives for the private insurers to cut their costs. No public option, no incentive to the private insurance industry to do anything but rip off the government and individuals.

[CTyankee]

61. I agree and hope Obama fights the bastards to the death. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

66. And if he doesn't succeed what then? Will you still be for a mandate?

[CTyankee]

76. I will not support a mandate that is unfair and w/o subsidies. To do otherwise

would not make sense. I don't believe that Obama would even proceed with such a plan. Do you?

[Hello_Kitty]

53. And who decides what people can afford?

The people who designed the House plan seem to think people can afford up to 12.5% of their income.

[CTyankee]

62. I take it that's if you don't want your current plan. If you like it, you can keep it. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

67. And if you are uninsured now you will be required to pay up to 12.5% of your income!

This isn't about my current plan.

[CTyankee]

78. I have not seen that figure. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

79. It's in the House plan.

Subsidies will be on a sliding scale from 100 to 400% FPL and the individuals' or families' portion of that will be from 1.5 to 12.5%. N

[CTyankee]

82. So who would pay the 12.5%? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

83. People at 400% FPL

Which is only around $45K.

I may have misunderstood, but this is what I learned at a meeting with staffers of my Congressman last week. With the public option, it might not be so bad because you may be able to purchase insurance for less than that percentage because the public option will be cheaper. With only private insurance you can bet they will charge as much as they can and give as little coverage as they can get away with.

[CTyankee]

84. I think this is why obama insists on the public option. Which I support.

I don't see how Obama could ever support the bill without the public option. Either it would be strangled in its crib or if passed Obama would have to veto it and make it clear why.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. Oh but don't you know that uninsured people spend all their money on latest fashion and gadgets?

That's the talking point I've been hearing lately to demonize the Welfare Queens uh I mean uninsured. Yep, they are living large! :eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

51. If you are broke how can you afford the mandatory insurance?

Oh wait...I know! Those partial subsidies will make money magically appear in your pocket to pay what the subsidies don't cover!

I swear to god, the uninsured are the new Welfare Queens. The latest scapegoat.

[CTyankee]

54. If you are broke, you go on Medicaid. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

57. Doesn't work like that.

I pretty much have to be homeless and have no income to qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid is basically for poor single mothers with children under 18. That's the majority of who is on it, because of the way it's designed. If you don't have dependents it's nearly impossible to get it. I mean, seriously, wouldn't most uninsured people have already signed up for it if they could qualify?

[CTyankee]

59. That's the OLD Medicaid. The new one is to be expanded upward to reach more

people.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. Really? Do you have a link to that?

If so, that's great.

Edit to add: It still doesn't change the fact that you are demonizing people who are currently uninsured, based on myths about them.

[CTyankee]

75. It is in Obama's plan. It was in all of the Dem candidates' plans backin the primary.

As for your second point, there are some younger people who spend their money on foolish things; I did when I was young...

[Hello_Kitty]

50. If the person who hit you doesn't flee the scene, their auto insurance will pay.

If they do flee the scene, you get stuck with the bill. And you pay it, even if it takes you the rest of your life. If you don't, it goes to collections and you get hounded and your credit is ruined. Sure, there are people who never pay but the role that the uninsured play in the high cost of health insurance is greatly exaggerated. The problem is the greedy, rapacious, parasitic, profit-driven insurance industry. They will always be the problem yet some people honestly believe that mandating people to buy private insurance will magically drive the costs down. It won't.

[CTyankee]

55. I agree about the insurance industry but we are faced with two prospects:

one is the reform you seem to loathe and the other is keeping the status quo which Obama has carefully explained is heading for catastrophe for the country.

So it seems to me we had better do something.

[CTyankee]

40. If you STILL can't afford health insurance you can go on Medicaid, according

to this bill. That way, you get your health care w/o having a bill.

Normally, most people who can afford reasonably priced health care insurance will buy it, want to buy it. So I think you paint a false picture to get across your point.

Young workers who don't feel they "need" health insurance and spend all their disposable income on electronics and clothes need to understand that they, too, are not "bulletproof." They may not develop heart disease or arthritis but they could develop cancer, or they could be in a serious accident and require extensive care. Who pays for that? Is it fair that others do and they don't contribute one red cent?

[Hello_Kitty]

56. LOL.

I don't qualify for Medicaid in my state unless I make less than $850 a month.

Young workers who don't feel they "need" health insurance and spend all their disposable income on electronics and clothes need to understand that they, too, are not "bulletproof." They may not develop heart disease or arthritis but they could develop cancer, or they could be in a serious accident and require extensive care. Who pays for that? Is it fair that others do and they don't contribute one red cent?

The young working people I know can barely afford toilet paper. They buy their electronic gadgets on eBay and their clothes at thrift stores. They work in shitty jobs with no benefits and many have big student loans.

I do know many of the sort of young people you are thinking of. Lazy, indolent, and living off their parents' dime. Yes, they have all the latest stuff and they also have health insurance because they are still on their parents' policies.

You really ought to get out and ask some working class people under 30 about the health insurance that's available to them. It's a ripoff.

[CTyankee]

60. Again I explain: you are referring to the old Medicaid. The whole idea is to expand

Medicaid up the income bracket to make it applicable to more people.

Health insurance need not be a ripoff. But the point is that everyone should be covered. You don't like it that the private insurers are in on the deal. I don't like it either. In a perfect world, I would vote for single payer. But we don't have a perfect world, in case you've noticed.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. MA's system is about to go broke.

It's working for some people, and not so well for others, but it's costing the state a lot more than they expected. And that's because they kept it in the hands of private insurers who did NOT change the way they did business, even with "everyone" covered.

[CTyankee]

77. Well, now we've seen what we DON'T want in a mandated plan. nt

[debbierlus]

10. If you can't afford the plan, it isn't 'avoiding' , it is unaffordable

There seems to be a myth that mandatory private health insurance will be affordable and everyone can just buy in.

It is NOT affordable.

Do you consider 1,200 dollars a month for a family of three making a little over 65,000 a year, affordable?

That is the cost in MA with our 'wonderful' mandatory health insurance. And, that does not count the cost of the high co-pays for the deductibles and co-pays, so that monthly fee is NOT your bottom line. And, forget about it, if you need expensive prescription drugs which can run hundreds a dollars a month with co-pays for some drugs.

In order to fix this mess, and get everyone covered at a truly affordable rate with EQUAL coverage, you HAVE to excise the health insurance leeches.

[CTyankee]

11. MA's health insurance plan is NOT what is being proposed! Please!

Do not bait and switch this argument.

It is my understanding that at this point (the House plan) there are generous subsidies for middle class families. None of what you just posted is even factual under this plan.

Why do you promote this stuff that you make up?

[Hello_Kitty]

21. What are the subsidies?

From what I understand about the health plan, you can be expected to pay up to 12.5% of your income if you are 400% poverty level (which isn't that much). Have you started making 12.5 percent more lately?

The Senate plan, from the latest reports, is dropping both the public option and the requirement for employers to provide coverage.

[CTyankee]

25. What percentage are you paying now? nt

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Um, what?

I get health insurance through my employer. My share is like 3% of my income. And I'm at about 400% FPL.

If I had no insurance I would be mandated to pay 12.5%.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Congress pays about 3% as well, if that

yet they want to make the people pay much larger percentages than they do for much worse coverage.

[bluethruandthru]

28. The "subsidies" are taxpayer dollars. I don't want my tax dollars

being used to buy private insurance for those who can't afford it. Why do we want to give even more of our money to the for-profit insurance companies who gouge us, deny care, jack up premiums, etc. to give their CEO's big bonuses? Makes no sense to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Families? You mean only those families who have the

Faith Based Office of Discrimination's stamp of religious approval? Because the bill I read discriminates against my family. Says we are not a family. And that is okie dokie with so many DUers that it makes me sick.
So subsidies. For families. Under the discriminatory tax law. To force us to contribute to the profits of companies that murdered thousands in the 80's by neglect and denial?
As long as it helps your family, all is well, right? That is what I keep reading here, people who are insured and are protected by the law shouting about how they don't care about the poor, or about discriminating against their neighbors if they save a couple of hundred a month. I, me, mine. Screw ye, thee and thine.
Subsidies for families, as defined by religious bigots. Did you also support that thing about having separate water fountains if yours was the better one? And if not, why not? This is the same thing. Embracing prejudice for personal advantage.
And of course, it is not like CT is not hooked up with the Insurance biz. No one there works for them or anything like that!

[Hello_Kitty]

63. Bingo!

And ain't it ever so funny how the majority of those deadbeat uninsured freeriders who are the "new" Welfare Queens just so happen to NOT fit into the blessed Holy Nuclear Family model? Ain't it also just precious how the lion's share of subsidies will end up going to the blessed people in this mandatory plan? Gay? Single? Childless? Fuck you!

[debbierlus]

68. And, what are the income guidelines - we have generous subsidies for 'middle class' families in MA

Problem is, if you are like my sister, and are above the 'middle class' guidelines (65,000 for a family of three), you are not eligible and are subject to huge monthly payments.

[question everything]

6. I agree that it should go to a not for profit

certainly not to a company that is traded on he stock exchange and that the CEOs gets millions for "cutting costs."

For a while, hospitals and other providers would form an insurance group but I don't know if any still exists. No doubt, they were driven out by the for profit ones.

[RC]

30. The Non-Profits or 'not for profit' insurance companies as you call them are as crooked as

as any other health insurance companies. They skim and mis-direct the profits with the best of them.
The problem with health care in this country is the health insurance companies. Either get them under control or put them out of business.

[debbierlus]

7. Let me tell you about my sister, the Massachusetts programs, & reality

Everyone should have HEALTH CARE, not health insurance.

We have mandatory health care in MA. Either you are covered by the government, employer based health insurance, or, you buy health insurance from a state group pool that is suppossed to reduce rates because of the increased number of enrollees.

Sounds good, right?

Well, not really. Why? Because it isn't affordable and accessible to everyone...

My sister recently lost her health insurance provided by her husband's job. Now, they make decent money, over 65,000 a year, so they figured hey, let's just go to the group pool and buy some. It's suppossed to be affordable. The cost for a family plan for a family of three - 1,200 dollars a month.

1,200 dollars a month. And, that coverage has high co-pays & deductibles. You don't get health coverage without fees for that price. The insurance companys can STILL turn down procedures ordered by your doctor.

It is not affordable. Now, they do have the option to cross their fingers and buy only catastrophic health insurance, however, that covers hardly anything, it has a huge deductible before any coverage kicks in, and they don't have any health care coverage for things like routine physicals (they have a 8 month old) or any other routine health service.

Now, they really can't afford a full coverage plan and the catastrophic plan is an option (a really horrible option, but an option)

But, if they don't purchase either of these plans (one they can't afford, one that is just terrible, they will be subject to pay penalities for not participating).

Now, the people who do qualify for government assistance to be insured through MA health or qualify for help purchasing insurance have it better. However, the costs are so out of hand that current projections show that the MA model will be financially insolvent in two years. There will be no money to pay for the program.

And, that is because the health insurance companies eat up 1/3rd of all health care dollars. One third. For doing the same services that the government could provide based on the medicare model for only 3%.

Government administered health care (not 'socialized' medicine since only the payment is administerd by the the government) would provide enough discount on its own to provide complete care for everyone. And, that is before any sensible cost cutting measures (and I am not talking about decimating Medicare here) are put into place.

So, before you post about how much sense it makes for everyone to have health insurance, perhaps you might consider the implications of forcing the debacle of the currently private health insurance and all its problems onto a national level.

Thank you.

[question everything]

12. Just because implementing a good idea ended up badly

does not mean that it should be scrapped.

Someone did not bother to look closely at how it was implemented and I think the citizens of MA have a right to scream and to demand a better system.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Good idea?

How the fuck is FORCING people to support the existence of Dollar Bill McGuire's United Health Care Inc. (or other similar criminals) ever a GOOD idea?

[whosinpower]

14. Everyone should have access to health care

Insurance provided from privately run corporations have one interest - make a profit. They do so by selling insurance and not providing health care - it is a giant scheme that has caused health care costs to skyrocket with no end in sight.

How will mandating that everyone MUST have insurance - how will that lower costs? It won't. You pay too much right now - and that is because insurance companies are vampires on the system, leeching out dollars that should be spent providing care, and instead, funneling those revenues into profit.

Take the bull by the horns and demand single payer care, provided by Uncle Sam. You pay taxes....isn't it time you get something tangible out of the exchange? Then, Uncle Sam decides what is a fair, equitable cost. Uncle Sam decides what is covered - and health care providers can concentrate on what they were trained to do - heal people. Instead of running around, trying to find out what is covered, and what is not, who covers what, who to bill, when they will get paid. It is an administrative nightmare that is also leeching money out of the system.

Insurance companies had their chance to prove they can offer a good service for the costs they demand. They have failed - utterly. Premium costs have increased, and coverage has been rescinded. Competition within the insurance industry has NOT lowered costs.

[jwirr]

27. Are there that many people who would refuse to carry insurance if it

was affordable? Why do we even need a law like this? The only reason I can imagine for not wanting health coverage is not having enough money to purchase it.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. That's the rub.

In order for it to be affordable, and provide good coverage to everyone, we have to get the insurance companies out of the mix. As long as the bloodsuckers are part of it, it's either expensive as hell or doesn't cover anything. IOW, also expensive as hell.

[debbierlus]

69. Simple and brilliant point. Exactly.

[boppers]

33. Mandated car insurance?

That's your model?

Forcing people to keep a corporate risk industry alive, and profitable?

What's next, "fire insurance", or firefighters don't come?

"Police insurance"?

"Interstate insurance"?

"Military forces insurance"?

[Sebastian Doyle]

34. Mandatory Corporate Insurance: Not. Fucking. Acceptable.

If it was, we would have President Hillary or President Willard right now.

[Naturyl]

36. Piling away, as requested.

It would have to be subsidized down to nearly zero cost for many of the uninsured, and if you're going to do that, why not just go to a public option?

[Vinca]

38. Our resources should be pooled so everyone can obtain medical care.

That, of course, is the "insurance" model and it worked until they got bloody greedy. Now they need to be excised like pus-filled, septic boils. We need single payer. But, you want an answer to your question about why any of your tax dollars or insurance premium dollars should go to cover the uninsured. Because it's the humane thing to do. There may be a few people who can afford their own care slipping through. There may be (horror upon horror) a few "illegals" who get care. But, in the end, it's mostly American citizens who have either fallen on hard times or have been regarded as lepers by the health insurance industry and have been denied coverage.

[Odin2005]

41. Oh, quit using pesky facts!

Everyone knows that righteous ideological puritanism is more important than reality! :sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

70. Bullshit. I will accept a plan with a public option.

But mandatory private insurance isn't even close to what I want. Not even close.

[avaistheone1]

49. HR676 is what makes sense. Not forcing people who can not afford it to carry expensive insurance

policies.

[Orsino]

71. Health care is the goal, not health insurance.

We can, if we really want, choose to continue supporting the class of predatory executives who stand between us and needed care. I think we should choose to eliminate health care as a for-profit business.

[kwolf68]

80. Single payer...

I wonder if a single payer system will sap incentive to be prudent. I agree with getting these insurance suckers out of the system, but will 'free' simply mean the system is over-used?

I mean take a look at the other thing government spends money on as a single payer: Military...the amount of corruption and waste in that is breathtaking.

Will health care be like that and will contractors start selling bed pans to hospitals for 800.00, because the government is too obtuse to realize it's overpaying for bedpans, but the KO (contracting officer) signs off on it, because the owner of Ben Pan, Inc... gives him free Jets tickets.

I just don't know

[PatSeg]

85. We need to get "insurance" out of health care

Insurance is protection against an unforeseen disaster such as an accident or house fire. Health care is an ongoing process that people will utilize to some degree throughout their lives. To have health care costs included in our taxes is just as reasonable as having education, police protection, roads, etc. included in our taxes.

We need to get profit motivation out of our health care. Mandating coverage would only perpetuate a failed system.