Compulsory Health Insurance

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by manifold, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,727
    Thanks Received:
    7,232
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,784
    A lot of people seem to have especially strong opposition to requiring people to carry health insurance. Opposition based on principal I understand. It's just one more governmental encroachment on individual liberty. But from a practical standpoint, I don't really see why this is such a big deal (IMO the public option is a far worse idea).

    What is the difference between a law that mandates you buy health insurance and a law that mandates you pay taxes to cover your own health insurance (and likely other's too)?
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,552
    Thanks Received:
    5,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,364
    I suppose the primary differance is that the IRS has far more experiance in enforcing the collection of the money than any new agency would.
     
  3. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Taxes are an arrangement between government and the citizen. The mandate is between a private company and a citizen. Government can compel paying taxes but they cannot compel you to buy something. In any case, taxes are due for a service where apportioning benefit would be difficult. Like roads or defense. Where the benefit is direct, like health insurance, gov't has no business imposing a tax.
     
  4. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    You make some very good points. I'd just like to add that I don't have any problem at all with government encroaching upon someone's "liberty" to dip into my wallet to pay for their medical expenses.

    IMHO - No one has the "liberty" to demand that I pick up 100% of the tab for THEIR healthcare expenses. If they can afford to contribute to their own care - they should.
     
  5. toomuchtime_
    Offline

    toomuchtime_ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,570
    Thanks Received:
    710
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,991
    You present a false dichotomy. We do not have and no one has proposed a tax to pay for health insurance as an alternative to the individual mandate. The burden of the individual mandate will fall on Americans who are voluntarily uninsured, various estimated as between 17 million and 20 million, who could afford to buy health insurance but choose not to, who, under current law are responsible for their own medical expenses except in those few cases in which they spend themselves into poverty and qualify for Medicaid; the tax burden for these few is tiny.

    Without the individual mandate, the cost of the proposed insurance reforms other than the subsidies, insuring people with pre existing conditions at standard rates, a disability waiver of premium and a cap on out of pocket expenses, would impose such higher costs on insurers that premiums would rise by as much as 30%. The intent of the individual mandate to try to shift the entire cost of these reforms on to these 17 million to 20 million people who choose to be responsible for their own medical expenses. It is, in effect, a tax on the exercise of personal freedom.

    An alternative that has been proposed by many, mostly Republicans, is a sliding scale subsidy to help those with pre existing conditions to pay the higher premiums for high risk health insurance, and a mechanism for cost sharing with the states for such a purpose in included in the recent Republican counter proposal to HR 3962, and of course, this was McCain's proposal during the recent election. Under this proposal, only those who needed help to pay for the higher premiums of high risk insurance who receive financial aid, so the cost of paying for the reforms would be less and the benefits more progressively distributed, and since this cost would be spread over the entire population, the subsidies coming from the general fund, the per capita cost would be tiny compared to the thousands of dollars a year the individual mandate would require the voluntarily uninsured to pay.

    Clearly, on this point, it is the Republicans who have come up with the more progressive proposal and the Congressional Dems who are on the dark side of history.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    Simple answer....

    You only are forced to pay taxes if you opt to have an income.

    FOr the first time in our history, you are forced by government to buy something the very second you are born....and this mandate is with you for your entire life.

    There is absolutely no option....no choice.....and it will lead to other choices lost as time goes on.

    It is not about healthcare.......Conservatives are not against the healthcare part.......it is about government mandates.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  7. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    The massive (Kucinich estimated 70 Billion) amount of new revenue the private insurance companies will get from this has the smell of a back-door bailout. However, if you believe their intentions are good, it's merely another unintended consequence of a half-baked plan.

    Either way, it's really really stupid and it's the young who will suffer.... folks 18-29 who would normally never buy health insurance since they don't really need it are the victims here.
     
  8. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,850
    Thanks Received:
    4,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,575
    Ok, here's some laws for you..... how about a law that:

    1. You pay for your own housing.
    2. You pay for your own food.
    3. You support your children.
    4. You don't have children you can't afford... repeatedly.
    5. You pay for your own education.

    I mean, as long as we're mandating that we take care of ourselves and not burdon others such as seems to be the argument for "mandatory" health insurance...
     
  9. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    No...we are ALL vicrtims....For the first time government will be able to mandate you buy soimething every year for the length of your life.

    It is setting a precedent that contradicts the whole idea of our republic to begin with.
     
  10. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    You realize of course, that the "model" for this is compulsory auto insurance. Never mind that you don't need to buy auto insurance if you don't own an auto...
     

Share This Page