Compulsory Health Insurance

[Meister]

In several states you can purchase an auto without insurance, if you post a bond, same could be done with healthcare.

 

[Oldandtired]

In several states you can purchase an auto without insurance, if you post a bond, same could be done with healthcare.

And in all states you can simply opt not to buy a car......personal choice.

The minute you are born, you are forced to have insurance....regardless of ANYTHING.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Oddball]

A newborn does NOT have that choice. So no...it is not a choice.

Dont avoid the reality of the bill... for GOOD OR BAD......it will be the first time in our history that an individual is mandated to buy something with no choice whasover....

Such a mandate truly needs to be analyzed before signed into law

Not exactly....We're forced to go to the state for criminal prosecutions.

Somehow, I don't think O.J. would have got away with murder if the Browns and Goldmans could have paid for the bet prosecutors they could find.

 

[xotoxi]

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.

 

[Oldandtired]

A newborn does NOT have that choice. So no...it is not a choice.

Dont avoid the reality of the bill... for GOOD OR BAD......it will be the first time in our history that an individual is mandated to buy something with no choice whasover....

Such a mandate truly needs to be analyzed before signed into law

Not exactly....We're forced to go to the state for criminal prosecutions.

Somehow, I don't think O.J. would have got away with murder if the Browns and Goldmans could have paid for the bet prosecutors they could find.

if we OPT to prosecute.

Point well made, but, again, there is an option there.

There is absolutely no option involved in the madate of this bill.....at least for the first several years of your life.

It will be historic if passed...and open the floodgates to many other "choices" we currently enjoy.

 

[Oldandtired]

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.

One has the option to go into the innusrance business or not. One has the option to build and operate a hospital.

If you do not want to run an insurance company that is forced to enrol one with pre-existing conditions....then do not go into the business.

Simple solution......mandate insurance companies to enrol those with pre-exisitng conditions....and mandate that premiums are set at a level to allow no more than a certain profit rate....and let the business owners decide if they want to go into or stay in the business.

Why must we mandate THE PEOPLE to do something with NO option?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.

Wrong.

Indigent care is paid for locally, at least where I live. It's part of our property taxes. For the public hospital district. Private hospitals don't have to provide indigent care, but do anyway in life-threatening circumstances.

But of course, you're deflecting away from the primary issue, erecting a feel-good strawman in order to do so.

 

[xotoxi]

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.

Wrong.

Indigent care is paid for locally, at least where I live. It's part of our property taxes. For the public hospital district. Private hospitals don't have to provide indigent care, but do anyway in life-threatening circumstances.

But of course, you're deflecting away from the primary issue, erecting a feel-good strawman in order to do so.

I am doing no such thing. I am discussing an issue that I would like to discuss, which I had brought up in another thread which is being ignored.

As for not having to provide care...that is absolutely wrong. A hospital is mandated to provide care for anyone that shows up. They are legally not allowed to ship non-paying individuals to different hospitals. And locally here, indigent care is given for free...the cost of which is handed on to other paying customers.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.

Wrong.

Indigent care is paid for locally, at least where I live. It's part of our property taxes. For the public hospital district. Private hospitals don't have to provide indigent care, but do anyway in life-threatening circumstances.

But of course, you're deflecting away from the primary issue, erecting a feel-good strawman in order to do so.

I am doing no such thing. I am discussing an issue that I would like to discuss, which I had brought up in another thread which is being ignored.

As for not having to provide care...that is absolutely wrong. A hospital is mandated to provide care for anyone that shows up. They are legally not allowed to ship non-paying individuals to different hospitals. And locally here, indigent care is given for free...the cost of which is handed on to other paying customers.

Yes, a PRIVATE hospital can and does "ship" non life-threatening indigent cases to the public hospitals.

Your argument is a strawman. NO ONE is against indigent care. They are against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT mandating it universally.

I happily pay my property tax. It includes monies for the local PUBLIC hospital district. It does NOT include any for PRIVATE hospitals.

See your strawman blown away yet? Go back and read your first post here.

 

[Oldandtired]

If you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force an individual to purchase insurance...

and if you are one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately-owned insurance corporation to cover every individual regardless of their risk or ability to pay...

then you must also be one to believe that the government should not be able to force a privately owned hospital to treat every individual that comes in, regardless of ability or means or intention to pay.

Wrong.

Indigent care is paid for locally, at least where I live. It's part of our property taxes. For the public hospital district. Private hospitals don't have to provide indigent care, but do anyway in life-threatening circumstances.

But of course, you're deflecting away from the primary issue, erecting a feel-good strawman in order to do so.

I am doing no such thing. I am discussing an issue that I would like to discuss, which I had brought up in another thread which is being ignored.

As for not having to provide care...that is absolutely wrong. A hospital is mandated to provide care for anyone that shows up. They are legally not allowed to ship non-paying individuals to different hospitals. And locally here, indigent care is given for free...the cost of which is handed on to other paying customers.

I believe my response below helps. Here it is again....

One has the option to go into the innusrance business or not. One has the option to build and operate a hospital.

If you do not want to run an insurance company that is forced to enrol one with pre-existing conditions....then do not go into the business.

Simple solution......mandate insurance companies to enrol those with pre-exisitng conditions....and mandate that premiums are set at a level to allow no more than a certain profit rate....and let the business owners decide if they want to go into or stay in the business.

Why must we mandate THE PEOPLE to do something with NO option?

 

[Oddball]

Yes, a PRIVATE hospital can and does "ship" non life-threatening indigent cases to the public hospitals.

Happened to me, in Asheville, NC.

 

[American Horse]

I suppose the primary difference is that the IRS has far more experience in enforcing the collection of the money than any new agency would.

This raises the level of government coercion through the IRS by an entire order of magnitude.

It used to be a person could go out and work in the underground economy taking checks for payment, never mind cash, if the jobs were small enough and not tax deductible by the customer there was no risk for them, even when they got caught up with. Now they are being threatened with fines and even jail time. These are the types of threats that are hard to ignore.

There are also lots of people at the beginning of a small business career who are healthy and need the edge that offers them to get started; a part of that edge is they do not have to pay for health insurance. Little do they know that an individual policy (except for a few states like Maine, NJ, NY, etc) is really quite affordable.

This new insurance/tax regime will cost them much more than if they'd gone out and bought their insurance in the existing free market. They will understand that be more likely to give up initiating their own business career, and go to work for people they'd rather not work for. This is not a recipe for high productivity. In this way more folks will become more dependent rather than independent.

Would you consider starting a small business knowing the new added costs you will endure if you are going to need to have employees? This will dampen new small business start-ups and new employment that would come from those start-ups.

 

[manifold]

A newborn does NOT have that choice. So no...it is not a choice.

Dont avoid the reality of the bill... for GOOD OR BAD......it will be the first time in our history that an individual is mandated to buy something with no choice whasover....

Such a mandate truly needs to be analyzed before signed into law

Not exactly....We're forced to go to the state for criminal prosecutions.

Somehow, I don't think O.J. would have got away with murder if the Browns and Goldmans could have paid for the bet prosecutors they could find.

if we OPT to prosecute.

Point well made, but, again, there is an option there.

There is absolutely no option involved in the madate of this bill.....at least for the first several years of your life.

It will be historic if passed...and open the floodgates to many other "choices" we currently enjoy.

You make some very good points.

I'm still not sure I see it as quite as slippery a slope as you do though.

 

[Oldandtired]

Not exactly....We're forced to go to the state for criminal prosecutions.

Somehow, I don't think O.J. would have got away with murder if the Browns and Goldmans could have paid for the bet prosecutors they could find.

if we OPT to prosecute.

Point well made, but, again, there is an option there.

There is absolutely no option involved in the madate of this bill.....at least for the first several years of your life.

It will be historic if passed...and open the floodgates to many other "choices" we currently enjoy.

You make some very good points.

I'm still not sure I see it as quite as slippery a slope as you do though.

Well...lets look at it this way.

The reason for healthcare reform is healthcare is deemed as a necessity in life.
I agree.

So is food. The highest markup in food is at the retailer. Should the government open a government gorcery and MANDATE that all people MUST buy a certain amount of food a day...or be fined?...Bear in mind, the fine is written into the bill as a means to help support the bill......

Of course, this sounds absured...but lets do this...

replace the word "healthcare" with the designatrion of (ITEM X)....and apply it to ANYTHING deemed as necessary to life......

You will see how this can easily set a trend....

Burial servies? Expensive, profit driven, a must in society....is that next?
Food?
Clothing?

America was NEVER built on the iodsea of government mandating NO CHOICE.

There are better solutions that have been presented by BOTH sides of the aisdle and ignored.

 

[Ravi]

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)?

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.

Children wouldn't be forced to pay for health care...but their parents may be. Seems like a cons dream.

 

[Oldandtired]

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)?

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.

Children wouldn't be forced to pay for health care...but their parents may be. Seems like a cons dream.

Mandate...children will be mandated to be covered at a cost.....first time in our history ANYONE will be madated BY GOVERNMENT to spend money.....without any option whatsoever.

 

[namvet]

if you define compulsory as required by law then whats the penaly for definace???

 

[xotoxi]

Yes, a PRIVATE hospital can and does "ship" non life-threatening indigent cases to the public hospitals.

In my state, that would mean indigent cases would all have to be shipped out of state.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Children wouldn't be forced to pay for health care...but their parents may be. Seems like a cons dream.

Mandate...children will be mandated to be covered at a cost.....first time in our history ANYONE will be madated BY GOVERNMENT to spend money.....without any option whatsoever.

Not really. If you are homeless you are subject to arrest.

 

[xotoxi]

Wrong.

Indigent care is paid for locally, at least where I live. It's part of our property taxes. For the public hospital district. Private hospitals don't have to provide indigent care, but do anyway in life-threatening circumstances.

But of course, you're deflecting away from the primary issue, erecting a feel-good strawman in order to do so.

I am doing no such thing. I am discussing an issue that I would like to discuss, which I had brought up in another thread which is being ignored.

As for not having to provide care...that is absolutely wrong. A hospital is mandated to provide care for anyone that shows up. They are legally not allowed to ship non-paying individuals to different hospitals. And locally here, indigent care is given for free...the cost of which is handed on to other paying customers.

I believe my response below helps. Here it is again....

One has the option to go into the innusrance business or not. One has the option to build and operate a hospital.

If you do not want to run an insurance company that is forced to enrol one with pre-existing conditions....then do not go into the business.

Simple solution......mandate insurance companies to enrol those with pre-exisitng conditions....and mandate that premiums are set at a level to allow no more than a certain profit rate....and let the business owners decide if they want to go into or stay in the business.

Why must we mandate THE PEOPLE to do something with NO option?

You make a great point. I agree.

I firmly believe that there should be serious insurance reform.

I don't think that individuals should be forced to purchase health insurance, but I think that health insurance should be made far more affordable than it is.

I also don't think that businesses should be penalized for not providing insurance for their employees, but that they should be given incentives to provide them.