Insurance mandate: Should the healthy pay for irresponsibility?

[rightwinger]

Quote:
I'm the same way. I seldom need to see the doctor. What are you going to do if you get cancer and have years of expensive treatment ahead of you? Opt in?
Go bankrupt. Like everyone else who gambles and loses. But people should be able to have that choice.

In truth

You gambled...you lost....now go ahead and die already

 

[rightwinger]

No - abusing food, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and avoiding exercise are unhealthy choices.

It's perfectly valid for a healthy person to decide that the cost of having insurance is not worth it. One major plank of ObamaCare is to force healthy, young people to pay far more for health insurance than is justified by the benefit they will receive in order to subsidize those who abuse their health and the elderly.

I don't need health insurance

I will never get sick
I will never get injured
I will never have a car accident because I am a good driver
My kids will never need a doctor
I am immune from all disease

Yea right! Until you show up at an Emergency Room with a severe condition and you expect the taxpayers to foot the bill

Who said anything about "never"? Only you.
From the time I was 18 until I was probably over 30 I saw a doctor maybe twice. All the health insurance premiums I paid were wasted, as far as I am concerned. If someone wanted to opt out of insurance under those circumstances it would not be an unreasonable choice.

Me too.

I went 30 years without seeing a doctor and had health insurance the whole time . What a waste.........until my wife got sick last year and ran up $250,000 in medical bills

EVERYONE needs insurance

 

[rightwinger]

I don't need health insurance

I will never get sick
I will never get injured
I will never have a car accident because I am a good driver
My kids will never need a doctor
I am immune from all disease

Yea right! Until you show up at an Emergency Room with a severe condition and you expect the taxpayers to foot the bill

If someone decides to not buy health insurance, then gets stuck with a severe disease or injury, they should not expect to be paid for. I would think that it would be fairly easy to prove that they did or did not have the ability to pay for health insurance, and if not, should have their wages garnished to make up the cost.

I don't think anyone is making the argument here that people should be able to not have to buy insurance then rely on the government to save their ass from their own irresponsibility. I just want the right to be able to make my own decisions, and with that right, comes the consequences if i don't take the necessary precautions to take care of myself.

Peoples healthcare shouldn't fall into a "gotcha" category

Gambled on not having insurance and came down with cancer? Gotcha....now go ahead and die
Gambled on not having enough insurance and now face $500,000 in medical bills? Gotcha.....now go to the poorhouse

Like it or not, major health issues are beyond the financial capabilities of most Americans. Americans should not play craps with their health. EVERYONE should have insurance no matter how healthy you think you are

 

[American Horse]

The maiin part of the GOP plan seems to be to remove the states rights to regulate insurance companies doing business within their borders.

Re the Interstate Commerce Act. The Feds could require that insurance not be restricted across state lines.
States could require that any customer purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy be advised in writing of all omissions of pertinent state mandates, which is where the rub comes in. The states would then regulate all insurance carriers in regards to all other aspects, as corporations doing business in their jurisdiction (as they already do, in states that have Insurance Commissioners)

 

[Some Guy]

Like it or not, major health issues are beyond the financial capabilities of most Americans. Americans should not play craps with their health. EVERYONE should have insurance no matter how healthy you think you are

I agree that everyone should heave health insurance, but unlike you, i don't agree with forcing that belief on everyone. Hence my earlier post. I'm talking strictly about people who can afford health insurance. If they choose to risk not having health insurance because they're healthy and they suffer a serious disease or injury and can't pay for it, then that's their fault and should suffer the consequences. It's called accepting responsibility for yourself and your actions. If someone eats fast food all the time then they better be prepared for the consequences of being fat.

I understand some people can't afford health insurance and have no problem subsidizing them a bit via Medicaid but i'd prefer the requirements be pretty stringent on that.

I'm not so worried about the mandate though as i am with the preexisting conditions clause. That, in concert with the mandate, will demolish the health insurance industry. As i said in another thread, trying to get health insurance with a serious injury or disease is like trying to get car insurance with the full intent and disclosure of totaling your car the next day. If that passes, i would expect health insurance premiums to at least triple, causing people to drop their plans and pay the fines, eventually leading to the government stepping in an instituting universal health care.

 

[The Rabbi]

The maiin part of the GOP plan seems to be to remove the states rights to regulate insurance companies doing business within their borders.

Re the Interstate Commerce Act. The Feds could require that insurance not be restricted across state lines.
States could require that any customer purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy be advised in writing of all omissions of pertinent state mandates, which is where the rub comes in. The states would then regulate all insurance carriers in regards to all other aspects, as corporations doing business in their jurisdiction (as they already do, in states that have Insurance Commissioners)

Quit making sense. You'll give the liberals here a headache.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The top 1% of the country who got Bush tax cuts should pay for this. Fair is fair. They got, now they pay.
QUOTE]

^

Ignoramous/douche bag/penis envy post alert.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't need health insurance

I will never get sick
I will never get injured
I will never have a car accident because I am a good driver
My kids will never need a doctor
I am immune from all disease

Yea right! Until you show up at an Emergency Room with a severe condition and you expect the taxpayers to foot the bill

If someone decides to not buy health insurance, then gets stuck with a severe disease or injury, they should not expect to be paid for. I would think that it would be fairly easy to prove that they did or did not have the ability to pay for health insurance, and if not, should have their wages garnished to make up the cost.

I don't think anyone is making the argument here that people should be able to not have to buy insurance then rely on the government to save their ass from their own irresponsibility. I just want the right to be able to make my own decisions, and with that right, comes the consequences if i don't take the necessary precautions to take care of myself.

Peoples healthcare shouldn't fall into a "gotcha" category

Gambled on not having insurance and came down with cancer? Gotcha....now go ahead and die
Gambled on not having enough insurance and now face $500,000 in medical bills? Gotcha.....now go to the poorhouse

Like it or not, major health issues are beyond the financial capabilities of most Americans. Americans should not play craps with their health. EVERYONE should have insurance no matter how healthy you think you are

Why?
People do that all the time. How many people live paycheck to paycheck? Then something happens like a car accident, job loss, or other major repair and they go to bankruptcy. Would you like to mandate people open savings accounts and contribute a certain amount a month too? Why not have a taxpayer subsidy for people not making enough fo r that?
And most people don't have major health issues. It happens often but most people go through life without catastrophic illnesses.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anybody who would say sometihng that patently ignorant must be one of the 38 percenters who pay no income taxes. Which I'm sure to them is completely fair.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If someone decides to not buy health insurance, then gets stuck with a severe disease or injury, they should not expect to be paid for. I would think that it would be fairly easy to prove that they did or did not have the ability to pay for health insurance, and if not, should have their wages garnished to make up the cost.

I don't think anyone is making the argument here that people should be able to not have to buy insurance then rely on the government to save their ass from their own irresponsibility. I just want the right to be able to make my own decisions, and with that right, comes the consequences if i don't take the necessary precautions to take care of myself.

Peoples healthcare shouldn't fall into a "gotcha" category

Gambled on not having insurance and came down with cancer? Gotcha....now go ahead and die
Gambled on not having enough insurance and now face $500,000 in medical bills? Gotcha.....now go to the poorhouse

Like it or not, major health issues are beyond the financial capabilities of most Americans. Americans should not play craps with their health. EVERYONE should have insurance no matter how healthy you think you are

Why?
People do that all the time. How many people live paycheck to paycheck? Then something happens like a car accident, job loss, or other major repair and they go to bankruptcy. Would you like to mandate people open savings accounts and contribute a certain amount a month too? Why not have a taxpayer subsidy for people not making enough fo r that?
And most people don't have major health issues. It happens often but most people go through life without catastrophic illnesses.

Don't bother arguing with this idiot....

 

[beowolfe]

Dumbasses.. this has NOTHING to do with healthcare.. it is about naionalizing 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

Stupid is as stupid does!!

 

[Cuyo]

Someone has to pay.

I understand. Basically, your argument is that healthy people should have to pay for unhealthy people's insurance. Makes perfect sense.

She's making the point that you already do, dingus.

 

[Some Guy]

She's making the point that you already do, dingus.

And i agreed with it earlier in this thread.

 

[RationalAltruis]

Exactly. That's why we need legislation prohibiting insurance companies from dropping people because of preexisting conditions (or something like that).

Word of advice. Don't go into business for yourself or ask for other people's money to do it. You can't run an insurance business for a profit if you let people buy in the day after they find out they're sick. Why is that so difficult for you people to understand?

I understand it perfectly. That's why I understand that insurance companies should be fully able to deny people trying to apply for insurance the day they get sick, because they're basically trying to game the system, and the insurance company has no reason to let them do so.

Once you throw the clause in there that companies can't reject applicants due to preexisting conditions, the game changes completely.

I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that what they were trying to do was to introduce a provision that companies can't deny people coverage for preexisting conditions after both parties have signed the contract.

Also, even if the companies were forced to accept applicants with preexisting conditions, couldn't the companies simply jack up premiums to offset for the increased risk level?

The mandate says you need to be insured or pay a fine. The fine is going to be a lot less than it would be to pay for insurance, so healthy people will opt for the fine.

That would be true were it not for the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies the bill includes. Even healthy people would want to get some kind of basic health insurance, just in case they develop cancer or have a sudden medical emergency, right? So they would want to get catastrophic health insurance, even if they're healthy. The problem is that even catastrophic health insurance is very expensive, and could be crippling for low-income healthy people if they're required to buy it. A counter is that the subsidies in the health care bill will help out these poor families who want basic insurance but can't afford it.

The amount of subsidies for both the House and Senate bills is listed here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States#Differences_in_how_each_chamber_determines_subsidies

If a healthy person suddenly gets sick, the preexisting conditions clause kicks in, they can sign up for health insurance and have their bills paid for a fraction of the price they would've normally paid, then cancel their plan until they get sick again.

The idea is that the mandate will require these healthy people to get insurance before they get sick.

Even if these healthy people didn't have to buy insurance before they needed it, the insurance companies could still survive by drastically increasing premiums for the sick, who need the insurance, so have little choice but to keep paying it.

So, if we eliminate the mandate, and don't require insurers to accept risky applicants (even though it would be economical to accept everyone but those on the way to the hospital, given that the companies can charge different premiums to different people), there wouldn't be much of a problem; the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies would also allow the lower-income people to get insurance if they want it.

The problem is...we ALL pay for the uninsured when they do get sick or injured and can't afford to be repaired except in an emergency room

ER bills are horrendous, but aren't people told to pay for it before the bill is forgiven? In other words, if you can pay for it, you do so, and only otherwise if you're poor do the rest of us have to foot the bill.

One major plank of ObamaCare is to force healthy, young people to pay far more for health insurance than is justified by the benefit they will receive in order to subsidize those who abuse their health and the elderly.

That is the way insurance already works.

Not exactly. Insurance currently operates off of risk sharing - people who want to pool their risk do so so they don't have to keep $10,000 in a personal bank account in case they have a medical emergency. People who don't want to pool their risk (because they have extremely low risk) simply don't buy into the system.

A mandate would force these people to get insurance anyway, even if they don't want it; a mandate is not the way insurance in general is designed to work. I'm going to direct you to my earlier post:

The important distinction to be made is between risk sharing and cost sharing. The whole premise of insurance is based on risk sharing, that you don't have to keep $4000 in a private bank account just in case you get into an accident that requires expensive treatment. I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

I am disagreeing with the premise that the healthy (and often more responsible) should be forced to pay into the for-profit system for the unhealthy (and often less responsible). Were there not so much of a difference in responsibility, there wouldn't be much of a problem; that's one reason why car insurance makes sense, because it only takes a split second for an accident to happen - the person is often not at much fault.

if you force insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions without requiring healthy people to pay in - the costs for the insured will skyrocket.

Which is why I don't think insurance companies should be forced to accept extremely risky applicants, or applicants who are already on the way to the hospital.

If people apply for insurance before they get sick, it would be in the insurance company's economic interest to take them on, but (if the applicant has a preexisting condition), the company should simply increase their premiums to offset the increased risk. If the applicant is too poor for the premiums, that's what the subsidies in the health care bill ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_debate_in_the_United_States#Differences_in_how_each_chamber_determines_subsidies ) are for.

And the uninsured? Well....there is always the emergency room and they can't be turned away if they can not pay the costs of a catastrophic illness.

Someone has to pay.

But at least in this situation, they pay their own costs initially, and the rest of us have to foot the bill only if they can't pay for it. And as The Rabbi points out, "unreimbursed costs are a very small part of the health care crisis". The same argument applies for the mandate: those with preexisting conditions or expensive premiums should attempt to pay for their insurance / care on their own, which they'll be able to if they're rich, but if they're not, the subsidies will allow them to get insurance and care anyway.

 

[Care4all]

no, pre existing conditions was for people wanting to buy insurance so it was BEFORE a contract signed

 

[RationalAltruis]

no, pre existing conditions was for people wanting to buy insurance so it was BEFORE a contract signed

Then wouldn't the company simply increase premiums? And if the person is too poor to afford those premiums, isn't that what the hundreds of billions in the health care bill are for?

Either way, I don't see why a mandate would be necessary.

Of course, a public option of some sort would be ideal, and would make the mandate much more justifiable, but that doesn't look like it has much chance of happening.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The entire health care debacle is unconstitutional, and will be legally challenged by numerous states. And by the time some liberal judge allows it, all of the Democrats will be out of office, and new legislation will emerge to erase this corruption.

 

[RationalAltruis]

The entire health care debacle is unconstitutional, and will be legally challenged by numerous states. And by the time some liberal judge allows it, all of the Democrats will be out of office, and new legislation will emerge to erase this corruption.

Oh really?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare

 

[MikeHoncho]

The entire health care debacle is unconstitutional, and will be legally challenged by numerous states. And by the time some liberal judge allows it, all of the Democrats will be out of office, and new legislation will emerge to erase this corruption.

Oh really?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare

i'm sorry i may have missed where it says the federal government has the power to make me purchase something.

 

[RationalAltruis]

The entire health care debacle is unconstitutional, and will be legally challenged by numerous states. And by the time some liberal judge allows it, all of the Democrats will be out of office, and new legislation will emerge to erase this corruption.

Oh really?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare

i'm sorry i may have missed where it says the federal government has the power to make me purchase something.

I completely agree with you; I don't think you should have to purchase insurance. However, he was referring to the "entire health care debacle is unconstitutional", not simply the mandate. I'm assuming that the Democrats are attempting to "promote the general welfare" through their health care bill, though whether they actually are or not is debatable.