Would someone tell me what is wrong with allowing people to NOT purchase health insurance

[RB TexLa]

if they do not want to buy it?

Is it the idea that people have to have that decision made for them?

[cigsandcoffee]

1. Our culture is too advanced to let people be free.

Or something like that.

[fenriswolf]

2. don't you get it

the health insurance wants new customers, even unwilling ones and if its a crime to not have it then all the better. go hillary!!!!!!!!!! I don't care if she's a corporate shill she has got our back.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Yes force people to spend money!

It's the American way!!

[hfojvt]

22. it's not too much different than paying for it with taxes

People are still forced to pay taxes.

[regnaD kciN]

24. Except that taxes can be progressive...

...so that the burden can be spread more fairly. (The HillaryCare plan claims that tax credits will be given to those "unable to pay," but past experience with such plans suggests "unable to pay" only means those below the official poverty level.)

The other problem with individual mandates rather than single-payer is that there is no impetus for cost control, since insurance companies can just pass the higher charges (and their profit factor added to the higher charges, of course) along to consumers, who will be legally required to pay them; whereas, with a government-based single-payer system, such prices would have to be negotiated with the government first.

[raccoon]

46. Other problems with individual insurance vs. single payer:

If you have pre-existing conditions, the insurance company can attach riders saying they're never, ever going to pay jack for treatment of that condition(s).

THe insurance companies can refuse to cover you altogether, or else have a premium so high who could pay it?

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. And do you think taxes will be as high as health insurance premiums?

[insane_cratic_gal]

47. Absolutely not!

When you figure that the average american spends 300 to 500 a month on insurance that's 3,500 to 6,000 a year on health insurance alone.

Plus I'd really like to see that whole pre existing condition bullshit go away. I just think that is a foul way to refuse payment so they can pad their ceo's wallet.

[leftchick]

57. having insurnce does NOT guarentee coverage

have you seen Sicko?

[Spazito]

3. Hey, they should be able to refuse coverage BUT that means they are at the

back of the line for service NOT at the front, budging to the front of the line because they can PAY more. I suspect that might be a separate subject of debate.

[sandnsea]

5. A national health plan

that covers everybody, no matter what, would require everybody to participate. You keep thinking you aren't going to get in a car accident or get cancer, but you just don't know that. You're gambling with your financial future if you can afford health insurance and you're not buying it.

I object when the health plan is mandated and there's no help for half the country to pay for it.

[RB TexLa]

6. I have health insurance. I have a HSA with a qualified plan.

Mine is making money for me.

I'm just wondering why so many seem to want to tell others they are not allowed to chose not to have it. It just seems to be a lot of "If you can't decide to do what I think you should do then I will just have to make the decision for you."

[sandnsea]

8. Oh that's right

I forgot. Sorry.

Do you think people who are diagnosed with late stage cancer should get expensive treatment even though they waited too long to get a check-up? Do you think it should come out of your money?

[provis99]

7. WTF? Are you opposed to car insurance, because its mandated, too?

Or driver's licenses for that matter? There's a whole lot of stuff in society thats mandated, but I am always surprised when so-called liberals decide that the stand they will take against government is when they require society to have its health looked after.

This reply was to the original post.

[sandnsea]

9. I can choose to walk

What am I suppose to do when the choice is between $900 health insurance and $700 rent?

[RB TexLa]

10. Someone's health doesn't create a liability to others the way an auto accident can

And you do not have to purchase auto insurance, you can deposit the minimum liability coverage amount with the state as proof of responsibility.

[sandnsea]

23. Yes it does

I've had strep throat for days, I got it from somebody else. People die from infections every day.

You didn't answer my cancer question either.

[RB TexLa]

25. I don't think I'm immune to car accidents or cancer

[sandnsea]

26. That wasn't my question

Do you think people who are diagnosed with late stage cancer should get expensive treatment even though they waited too long to get a check-up? Do you think it should come out of your money?

[RB TexLa]

28. It would come out of the money I pay for premiums for the health policy

but not from the HSA part. Every treatment BC/BS pays for comes in part from my premium dollars, that's the way it works. I thought you were talking about your first question about cancer, sorry.

[sandnsea]

29. What if it raises your premiums

Because you're in a pool with a lot of people who have catastrophic illnesses. Is that okay with you?

[RB TexLa]

30. I have an individual policy, they are individually underwritten

People with high risks of catastrophic illnesses are not usually issued individual policies or if they are it is with a rate increase. There is spread from claims history but not to the extent of group insurance.

And mine is a high deductible, I put much more in the HSA per month than what is paid for the premium.

Premiums go up about 5 - 8 % a year on mine.

[sandnsea]

36. Group employment policies

do have premiums go up when there are too many people in the group with catastrophic illnesses. That can happen to any business without a lot of warning.

Your premiums go up every year because other people are either choosing not to buy insurance, or not using their HSA moneys to get check-ups and ending up with more serious illness which is more expensive to treat. I would think their irresponsibility, that is costing you money, would bother you.

[RB TexLa]

37. That is what I was saying, it's not as much of an increase as in group health

with a big claims history in a year.

Does my thinking people should be free to be irresponsible bother you? That is what some people do in just about every aspect of life, and it costs those that are responsible, nothing can be done about it, provided you consider people to be free human beings.

[sandnsea]

38. I guess if you're willing to pay

That's more than most folks would do. I'll remember that in future tax debates.

[RB TexLa]

39. That makes no sense. You do not accept that human nature leads to some people

being irresponsible? I understand that there are some things people do that we lock them up for, but for not buying health insurance, or for not seeing a doctor? They should face criminal penalties up to going to jail for it?

We already do pay more in taxes because of actions of others. There is hardly any aspect of life where responsible people don't pay something more because of those who are not responsible.

[sandnsea]

41. As long as you support that

And are happy to pay for health care for all, even if it's more than it should be, then good for you. I'm sure that's what we'll be doing for at least 20 years because Hillary's plan isn't ever going to pass.

[flaminbats]

43. shouldn't we get something in return for our taxes?

I don't pay more in taxes so others can be irresponsible, I pay my taxes because I expect others to do the same.

Bush's taxcuts didn't relieve me of paying for the irresponsible actions of others. those taxcuts have resulted in more government waste, more irresponsibility, but less for those who suffer because of the greed and egotism of others. the cancer patient who paid his premiums and gets nothing in return isn't being irresponsible, the insurance company is being irresponsible by taking this patient's money..and giving nothing in return! "there is hardly any aspect of life where responsible people don't pay something more because of those who are not responsible". yes and thanks to the irresponsibility of Republicans who wage war, but refuse to pay more in taxes..the elderly, disabled, poor, and future generations will all suffer in the name of business.

IMO this is the defining difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[flaminbats]

33. it does raise my premiums!

unfortunately too many of those with catastrophic illnesses aren't getting the coverage or healthcare they paid for. the average diabetic pays more than $100 for a bottle insulin, one bottle of insulin usually lasts less than a week.

I want a healthcare system that provides high quality coverage in return for the premiums I pay, not a system that takes my money while making me fight a battle for every prescription I fill. an insurance company shouldn't take a healthy person's money, and then refuse that person's premium once they develop a chronic illness!

[insane_cratic_gal]

50. I work in an ER and around insurance

Did you know if I f' up and stick in a wrong digit on your policy number BC/BS refuses to pay for the bill even when it's resubmitted with the correct policy number?

I can tell you those mistakes in our little hospital with a staff of 23 people who do registrations. Probably save the insurance companies millions every year. In fact Blues consolidated net earnings totaled $210 million for 2006

So you think they are paying but a lot of their profit is them refusing to pay for your bills and a hospital sucking up the cost which in turn makes the hospitals raise their prices, which of course raises the cost of a pill which effects your policy premiums and average monthly costs. Sort of a endless cycle. We haven't even talked about how an uninsured person takes in on the chin and so do you.

[pop goes the weasel]

15. actually, yes

I do oppose mandated automobile liability insurance, and I say this as someone who has been hit twice (minor) by uninsured drivers. The people who ran into me were far too poor to pay for car insurance of any sort, and taking away their right to drive because they are poor would only make them poorer when they can't get to work. People should be expected to insure their own property against damage. And a Medicare-for-all program should cover medical expenses, no matter how incurred, so people then wouldn't have to worry about medical bills from accidents. The current insurance system in all its aspects is both too susceptible to greed and too prone to be adversarial.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. ANd the folks who have no insurance now because they can't afford it?

What about them? Is it right to pass a law that makes people spend money - while our govt spends $720 million a day in Iraq?

Liberals (the ones who really are liberal) are supportive of government funded health care. Republicans want people to pay out of pocket.

[Tian Zhuangzhuang]

11. Simply put it doesn't work otherwise

The healthy have to support the sick financially. That is what a compassionate society does. And sometimes that means hard choices with limited resources.

We can be a country that cares for its sick or not.

that choice is mine yours and all of ours.

[Fading Captain]

14. Right, so why not make it government run, paid for by taxes

Rather than some boon for the insurance industry

[Tian Zhuangzhuang]

20. I agree actually but the poster asked why everyone had to pay.

[Fading Captain]

44. But I think it's an important distinction

Paying an insurance company which will profit and spend money on marketing and advertising and pressure hospitals to pay nurses slave wages is different than paying a tax.

[ecstatic]

51. Why is this concept *sooo confusing* to some? A true liberal

understands that sometimes we are all a little inconvenienced when it comes to making sure that *everyone* in our society is taken care of. It sucks, but it's much much better than letting the poorest among us rot.

[backscatter712]

12. Adverse selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection

The term adverse selection was originally used in insurance. It describes a situation where, as a result of private information, the insured are more likely to suffer a loss than the uninsured.

For example, suppose that there are two groups among the population, smokers and non-smokers. An insurer selling life policies can't tell which is which, so they each pay the same premiums. Non-smokers are likely to die older than average, while smokers are likely to die younger than average. So the life policy is a better buy for the smokers' beneficiaries. The insurance company anticipates or learns that the mortality rate of the combined policy holders exceeds that of the general population, and sets the premiums accordingly. The result is that non smokers tend to go uninsured though if they could buy a policy on terms that are actually fair given their characteristics, they would do so. So market failure is involved.

Furthermore, as a result of the higher premiums, not only do some non-smokers who do not want to pay the higher premiums cancel their policies and go uninsured, some smokers who cannot afford the higher premiums cancel their policies and go uninsured. Since there are fixed costs in running an insurance company, the insurance company must spread the fixed costs across fewer policies. This results in a reduction of profits or actual loses which forces the insurance company to again raise premiums.

With further rises in premiums, more non-smokers and smokers who cannot afford the higher premiums decide to cancel their coverage and go uninsured. This means the insurance company has even fewer policies to spread fixed costs across and results in further premium increases. This vicious cycle continues until the premiums become so high that no non-smoker or smoker can afford the policies or there are too few policies to spread fixed costs across. At this point the insurance company goes out of business and no one has insurance.

This is one of the reasons why people propose mandatory insurance - otherwise, only the people more likely to be sick will try to get insured, while the healthy more frequently try to save a buck by going uninsured, thinking they're not going to need it, raising the costs for everyone insuring, and causing the spiraling costs we see today.

It also explains why insurance companies refuse to cover preexisting conditions - that clause is put in there to stop adverse selection, and to stop the situations where a person goes without insurance when healthy, then buys insurance after learning they have a health problem and sticking the insurance company with the bill, without paying premiums for all those months when they're healthy.

Ironically, it also demonstrates why a Kucinich style universal health care system with everyone in the U.S. covered under Medicare and paying for it through taxes is the most efficient way of getting health care for everyone - no adverse selection, and the largest possible risk pool.

And that's just coming from adverse selection, not even getting to what's actually humane for people who need health care. At least more humane than saying "illegal immigrants don't get chemo..." or "Sorry, you've got a preexisting condition, we're not paying!"

[Perseid]

13. the war on everything is actually

a war on personal freedom. don't forget that.

even if it's not identified as a "war", it is likely a "war"

[flaminbats]

16. what's wrong with wanting something for nothing?

nothing is free in this world, but nobody with a healthcare problem or terminal illness should go bankrupt or die in debt because they can't afford treatment.

denying health insurance to those with preexisting conditions is wrong, those who are in the worst health should be helped the most. the problem, too many people don't understand this until they can no longer support themselves. without a requirement for everyone to pay the same price for the same level of coverage, insurance is only a spider web sold as a safety net..or another word for fraud and cherry-picking. we should all expect help from others when we become sick or old, but in return we should sacrifice for those who sick and old when we are still young and healthy.

[pnwmom]

17. Because insurance is based on the concept of spreading risk.

If everyone waited to buy insurance till they needed it, then everyone buying insurance would be sick, and the cost will be prohibitively high. The idea is that if you consistently pay a smaller amount all the time -- when you are well and when you are not -- then the costs will be manageable and the care will be available when you need it.

[RB TexLa]

19. I understand insurance and risk.

There are many decisions people make that are thought of as not wise, doesn't mean we have to make all of them illegal.

[flaminbats]

27. not all unwise decisions have to be legal..

freedom isn't another word for anarchy. freedom doesn't mean we can do anything we wish, simply because it was well planned. I could kill another person, and argue that the person I killed didn't do a good enough job of defending himself! I could expect the freedom to say what I wish and be safe from violence, but only if I pay the taxes necessary to fairly enforce the law.

I agree not every unwise decision should be a crime, but neither should it be legal to avoid paying taxes while receiving Social Security and Medicare. the law doesn't exist to prevent unwise actions, laws exist to limit the instability and negative effects of those actions.

[pnwmom]

35. The only way we as a society can afford health insurance for all those

who need it is to require payment of everyone, healthy or sick, whether they want to or not.

[Screwfly]

18. If the car repair business

worked like the health business you would take your busted up ride to the auto body shop about a dozen times for at least half a year before they figured out what was wrong with your car and how to fix it.

I doubt the medical establishment could be raised to the same level of competence and efficiency as the auto body repair field, so analog between mandatory car insurance and mandatory medical insurance seems rather dubious to me.

[Kelly Rupert]

32. If car repair was as difficult as medicine,

it would take eight years of education, six more of on-the-job training, and years of 60-hour weeks to be an auto mechanic.

[RB TexLa]

34. At least they already have the upcoding part down

:rofl:

[w8liftinglady]

21. I am a prime example of someone who didn't need health insurance

...until I had a seizure of unknown origin...leading to multiple CTs,MRIs,labs,sleep studies.My hospital bill is 750,000.I had insurance.I owe 20K.My meds run 100/mo.I totally support universal health care.I'll never be able to pay my med bills or change jobs.

[Kelly Rupert]

31. Because they are MASSIVE drains on the system. Seriously.

If you've never worked in the medical profession, you probably won't understand. My fiancée is going through her ER rotation in Chicago, and 15% of all people there should not be there.

See, when people get sick or hurt, they get care, insured or not. And the only place you cannot be turned away is at the emergency room. However, the most expensive care possible is found at the emergency room--you are getting the most expensive doctors, the most expensive tests all administered by malpractice-shy docs (for instance, nearly everyone who walks in with a stomachache is screened for colorectal cancer), and the most expensive infrastructure. An ER visit can easily cost twenty times what a general practitioner would cost the system.

And it all comes straight from the taxpayer's wallet.

And it gets worse. That's just the direct costs. The indirect costs, while difficult to quantify, are at least similarly damaging. People without insurance do not generally get preventative care--so instead of getting a few $1000 clinic visits (of which they pay, say, $50), they end up ignoring that little bump, developing stage IV breast cancer, filing bankruptcy, causing the hospital to eat tens of thousands of dollars, forcing everyone else to cover for that one person who didn't feel like buying health insurance.

Your refusal to purchase health insurance will directly and indirectly cost every other taxpayer and insurance holder in America. That seems fair, right? Perhaps you should be allowed to "opt out" of paying taxes, too. Aren't those unfair? What right does government have to tell you what to do with your money, right?

[sandnsea]

40. Didn't feel like it?

Or felt like paying the rent and buying food instead.

Oh, and your colorectal screening story, lol. No. You can't even get that kind of screening when you do have insurance most of the time. That's for wealthy people, make no mistake. Our ER told someone he had a 'tummy ache', when in fact his stomach lining was torn. No tests. I don't know where your fiancee is at, but most facilities "stabilize" you and kick you out these days.

[CTyankee]

49. My husband and I are not wealthy but we have wonderful health insurance.

He is a municipal employee and belongs to AFSCME. The union fights like hell to retain moderate pricing for very comprehensive health insurance. As a covered spouse, I pay $74 per month for drs. visits, dentists and some prescription drugs.

I am more convinced than ever that we need to put more effort into strengthening unions. The decimation of union membership in the country has resulted in very bad effects for middle class people and people trying to rise out of poverty. It was not for nothing that Ronald Reagan was bent on breaking unions...

[RB TexLa]

42. I have health insurance

[Romulox]

56. *Taxes* aren't paid to private, for-profit corporations like HillCare contributions are...

Hillary's plan will make her money people in the insurance industry quite a bit *more* wealthy than they already are, that's for sure.

Strange that a solution aimed at rooting out all these direct and indirect costs seems to have forgotten to exclude insurance industry middle-men. :crazy:

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Nothing, as long as you don't mind turning away the uninsured from ER's

[MUSTANG_2004]

53. Exactly. It's a messy situation.

I've known a large number of uninsured people. In a very few instances, the people legitimately could not afford insurance, mainly because they were obese are over 60 and the premiums were sky high. The rest of the people chose to spend there money elsewhere, with the assumption that they are young and healthy and, worst case, they won't be turned away if they need emergency care. Hillary's plan has the benefit of dealing with that situation.

[MUSTANG_2004]

54. I'd respect that decision more if

the people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it would also sign a document for emergency rooms that they are not be treated for anything beyond their ability to pay... Otherwise, they're choosing to save money at the expense of the rest of us, knowing that we won't turn them away from the emergency room.

[Romulox]

55. The insurance industry expects a return on those $$$ it gave to Hillary...

It's called a quid pro quo.