At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Does anyone have any views on mandatory health insurance? It seems to be a pretty big topic among possible presidential candidates? I was interested in people's views on this. It seems like a good idea. But, some people are saying it is unconstitutional because the constitution( or maybe it was the bill of rights, I'd have to go look it up again) says that the gov. can't make anyone enter into a contract with any person or organization against their will. I'm undecided about this. Maybe this is more of a political question. Just wondering!
I know some people who have been waiting almost a half year for medicaid to process their applications required for financial aid so they can enter a nursing home. Such delays I hear are typical in government run medical services. Vets appear to have a constant beef about the quality of health care in the gvt. run VA system also.
Mandatory health care is a step in the direction of universal government run health care. All the plans I've seen on this idea are very short on detail so I do not dismiss it out of hand until all the small print is revealed. There may be aspects of the plans worht considering .I do know that part of the pressure on the gvt. to institute gvt. plans comes from industries who are losing competitiveness due to their share of the costs associated with funding employee health insurance. I do not imaging they look kindly on plans like Hillary's that would mandate full coverage provided by the employer.
But Hillary knows this and I suspect that her ideas of gvt, funded coverage has not changed much since she introduced it in 1993 .She is trying to repackage her plan to make it appear more palatable . If Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way.
Hillary’s plan mandates health care coverage for both employers and individuals. Employers have to offer it and individuals, regardless of their employment, have to have it. Her plan doesn’t specify the punishments for failing to comply - she is leaving that decision up to Congress. She did, however, go so far as to suggest that proof of health insurance could be required in order to get a job! So we once again have government deciding what you can and can’t do to provide for yourself and your family.
Secondly, if coverage is required someone is going to have to decide what qualifies as such. Do you think this is going to be left to individuals? No, there will soon be standards and regulations that specify exactly what type of insurance and coverage are required, the documents required, etc. Hillary argues that her plan won’t require a new government bureaucracy, but this assertion requires, to adopt her own turn of phrase, a “willing suspension of disbelief.” Government mandates always mean more oversight, more paper work, and more bureaucracy.
By refusing to allow insurance companies to manage risk and allocate costs Hillary’s plan will also inevitably lead to rationing of care. When you socialize and subsidize costs you get increased costs because the end user isn’t paying the true cost of the care – if something is free or cheap why not use more of it. At some point the costs are going to be prohibitive and the government will step in to impose restraint. This means limiting care or access to care.
In the same way by socializing costs and removing the profit motive, Hillary’s plan will stifle the very innovation that has led to so many health care breakthroughs. Instead of allowing private research to lead the way, she proposes a government agency to study best practices and recommend cost saving measures. When was the last time a government panel outperformed the private sector?
As if this increasing government control and involvement wasn’t bad enough, Hillary’s plan willfully ignores the looming entitlement crises, will lead to higher taxes, and undermine economic growth.
Hillary’s plan simply wishes away fundamental economics. The laws of supply and demand do not go away by wishing them so. And the nature of government control doesn’t change simply by saying the word choice over and over again.
Hillary promises everything to everyone: refundable tax credits and increased spending on government programs for those who can’t afford coverage; mandated coverage for everyone no matter what the health condition; tax credits for small businesses that can’t afford to offer coverage.
It doesn’t take an accountant to figure out that this sort of system is going to cost a lot of money. This means higher taxes. Oh sure, Hillary promises she will only tax the rich. But as the spending goes through the roof watch how surprisingly broad the definition of “the rich” becomes.
On top of all of this, Hillary’s plan exacerbates the looming entitlement crisis. Entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are already causing budget problems at the state and federal level and the Baby Boom generation threatens to bankrupt the system. Hillary’s plan increases eligibility and spending on these very programs at a time when they threaten to bust the budget and stagnate the economy.
Don’t be fooled by the spin. Hillary’s latest proposal is simply a better packaged less complicated version of the government run monstrosity she proposed previously. It may take a few more steps to get there, but it is still the path to government run health care.
Bottom line : if you are going to require people to buy health insurance, then you are going to have to specify exactly what health-plan people will have to buy to satisfy this requirement. So the government has gone from telling you that you need health insurance, to telling you what kind of health-insurance coverage or plan you must have. When people or employers complain they can't afford it ,the next step will be gvt. subsidy . You see ? This is just a slow process towards gvt. provided health care ,and the delays ;the high taxes ,and the rationing that has been well documented in such plans.
I'm not sure if the question meant the direction of universal health or making mandatory that employers, even with smaller companies, having to provide some sort of health insurance benefit to the compensation package. If it the universal health route I thinks it's premature. ETW posted on the topic a short while back.
I work for a small home care agency that employs 97% of us as part time employees. My boss would go under if he were forced to cover all his employees with insurance. It would not just accept his agency but many others like that.
There are quite a few unmaried men and women, aged 18-30 who are not at high risk for any particular disease or ailment. Many of these people choose to spend their money on something other than health care or health insurance. They believe that the odds are in their favor for not getting sick, and they are making their financial choices on that basis. They have that right. In my opinion, it is wrong (morally and legally) to force them to spend their money on something they do not wish to purchase. If they would rather spend their moeny on the latest HD TV than on health insurance, that is their right. And the government has no business getting involved in that decision. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the WRONG choice without the government interfering in that choice.
That would mean that if such a person who has chosen not to buy health insurance DOES get sick or gets into an accident, they should pay for their health care out of pocket... and the government SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED. It means that the government should NOT be their safety net, because the government's idea of a "safety net" is to charge you and me for the costs of that person's medical coverage in the form of taxes.
The government has no place getting involved in health insurance decisions of its citizens... neither by mandating a requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance, nor in providing such insurance. It is not the government's business.
Are there those who wish to purchase insurance but cannot afford it? Yes. But those people are NOT without health care. Those people can still go to hospitals and receive any necessary medical care. And in fact, emergency rooms all across the country are used by people who can't afford health insurance as a primary care service. Everything from sniffles to major traumas are cared for in emergency rooms without being turned away, and the costs are passed on to other patients who CAN pay. And that doesn't even count all the free medical clinics that are available all across the country. Poor people who cannot afford medical insuirance can still receive competent medical care. A safety net is in place. The government doesn't need to get involved in the health insurance business or in providing a "safety net".
So I am against the idea of the government mandating "universal health care" or becoming a provider of such care.
If you would like to see what government-run healthcare would look like, just read some of the press about the VA health system. VA hospitals are disaster areas in the making. The care is poor, the equipment is shoddy, the administrators are incompetent and make decisions based on statistical tables and bureaucratic rules rather than the needs of the patients, and wait times for services by patients are month, even years long. THAT is what a government-run universal health care system would look like. Only it would be much worse, because it would be servicing 300,000,000 million Americans instead of the couple of million currently being served by the VA system.
Thaks for the question, Nikki. Hope this answer helps.
There are quite a few unmaried men and women, aged 18-30 who are not at high risk for any particular disease or ailment. Many of these people choose to spend their money on something other than health care or health insurance. They believe that the odds are in their favor for not getting sick, and they are making their financial choices on that basis. They have that right. In my opinion, it is wrong (morally and legally) to force them to spend their money on something they do not wish to purchase. If they would rather spend their moeny on the latest HD TV than on health insurance, that is their right. And the government has no business getting involved in that decision. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the WRONG choice without the government interfering in that choice.
That would mean that if such a person who has chosen not to buy health insurance DOES get sick or gets into an accident, they should pay for their health care out of pocket... and the government SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED. It means that the government should NOT be their safety net, because the government's idea of a "safety net" is to charge you and me for the costs of that person's medical coverage in the form of taxes.
The government has no place getting involved in health insurance decisions of its citizens... neither by mandating a requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance, nor in providing such insurance. It is not the government's business.
Are there those who wish to purchase insurance but cannot afford it? Yes. But those people are NOT without health care. Those people can still go to hospitals and receive any necessary medical care. And in fact, emergency rooms all across the country are used by people who can't afford health insurance as a primary care service. Everything from sniffles to major traumas are cared for in emergency rooms without being turned away, and the costs are passed on to other patients who CAN pay. And that doesn't even count all the free medical clinics that are available all across the country. Poor people who cannot afford medical insuirance can still receive competent medical care. A safety net is in place. The government doesn't need to get involved in the health insurance business or in providing a "safety net".
So I am against the idea of the government mandating "universal health care" or becoming a provider of such care.
If you would like to see what government-run healthcare would look like, just read some of the press about the VA health system. VA hospitals are disaster areas in the making. The care is poor, the equipment is shoddy, the administrators are incompetent and make decisions based on statistical tables and bureaucratic rules rather than the needs of the patients, and wait times for services by patients are month, even years long. THAT is what a government-run universal health care system would look like. Only it would be much worse, because it would be servicing 300,000,000 million Americans instead of the couple of million currently being served by the VA system.
Thaks for the question, Nikki. Hope this answer helps.
Elliot
Well said, ETW. To expand a little on your review of VA hospitals, my brother is currently a medical student and is doing a round at a VA hospital. He (and the other students) were turned loose with almost no supervision from day one because there are such staffing and administrative problems. Don't get me wrong, my brother is a smart guy... but he's no doctor, and if I'm in the hospital, I want a DOCTOR not a STUDENT handling my case.... Just imagine if ALL hospitals were like that.
Actually I think it would be unconstitutional. It is not the government's place to micromanage our lives but that's exactly what's happening, a little bit more every year.
My father died in a VA Hospital and received adequate care...but what has a persons personal experience have to do with whether a hospital is generally giving adequate care.
I’m against mandatory health insurance, that certainly won’t guarantee equal health care. I’m for tax dollars giving everyone adequate health care.
A person can have the very best of health insurance and still not get the ‘Best of Health Care;’ only a very select few of the worlds wealthiest get the ‘Best of Health Care.’
My father died in a VA Hospital and received adequate care...but what has a persons personal experience have to do with whether a hospital is generally giving adequate care.
I’m against mandatory health insurance, that certainly won’t guarantee equal health care. I’m for tax dollars giving everyone adequate health care.
A person can have the very best of health insurance and still not get the ‘Best of Health Care;’ only a very select few of the worlds wealthiest get the ‘Best of Health Care.’
Sorry about your father, DC; I didn't mean to imply with my post one is unable to get adequate care in a VA hospital. My brother actually participated in an experimental treatment with a medication for a disease (I don't know the details, however) - the idea for using the medication in that way was thought of by a student. So in all cases one is not going to get poor care, but certainly in some they will!
Linear Mode
