Log in

View Full Version : Mandatory health insurance


parttime
Jan 25, 2010, 06:38 PM
With 48 states requiring auto insurance, why is mandatory health insurance catching so much flak? Thoughts?

twinkiedooter
Jan 25, 2010, 06:40 PM
Last time I looked 50 states required mandatory insurance.

You should have posted this in the current events category.

nikosmom
Jan 25, 2010, 06:45 PM
The OP is right, only 48 states (and Wash DC) require auto insurance...

This thread was moved to a discussion forum.

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 03:22 AM
Because there is a big difference between the 2 insurances.Mandatory medical insurance is requiring one to insure themselves . Auto insurance requires one to insure for the damage one does to someone else. The part of auto insurance that covers oneself is optional.

The other big difference is that there is nothing that compels one to drive a car.

parttime
Jan 26, 2010, 04:39 AM
Thanks for the input Tom

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 05:05 AM
No problem ;I'm sure there are others on this board who have opposing views . The reason the issue of mandatory medical insurance is raised is because the government would like to compel the insurance companies to cover everyone regardless of their condition. The insurance companies correctly argue that to do that they need healthy customers to offset the expenses... or prohibitively raise fees.

Since many of the "uninsured " are the young and healthy people who have calculated the risk of not having medical insurance doesn't justify the cost of obtaining it; and they have better use for the money ,the money of these young and healthy adults are not available to offset the costs of bringing into the pool the people who are ill they would be required to add.

Therefore the only way to bring these young and healthy adults would be to compel them to pay for insurance.

It really is the same rational behind the so called Social Security Insurance. The young people who are starting in life ,trying to provide for their families are required to shell out of their paychecks funds to provide (inadequately ) for the retirement of the generation before them . In return there is a vague promise that when they are retirement age the money from the yonger population will provide for them . This is nothing more than a wealth transfer and a ponzi scheme .

If you look at the long term prospectus of both Social Security and Medicare (the current government run health care system) you see that both are underfunded for future "entitlement" liabilities.
That is the real reason why the government wants more people in the government run pool. They need to tap into greater resources to pay for the systems they have concocted .

parttime
Jan 26, 2010, 05:40 AM
Tom, I have an opposing view, I hope to hear from different view points.

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 05:50 AM
Here's another view: every other developed country has universal health care except the US. The US politicians seem to be more concerned about the health of the insurance companies versus the health of the people in their country.

speechlesstx
Jan 26, 2010, 05:53 AM
My 82 Toyota pickup has some pre-existing conditions, suppose I could get Farmers Insurance to cover the damage?

parttime
Jan 26, 2010, 06:02 AM
speechlesstx, do you really compare a truck to humans? Tom, what is civilization if the young and healthy don't care for the sick and old, We would be no different than animals.

parttime
Jan 26, 2010, 06:04 AM
Here's another view: every other developed country has universal health care except the US. The US politicians seem to be more concerned about the health of the insurance companies versus the health of the people in their country.


Thanks NK
Why do we think we know the best way over the rest of the world?

speechlesstx
Jan 26, 2010, 06:12 AM
parttime, I wasn't the one that started this by comparing mandatory health insurance with mandatory car insurance now was I?

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 06:13 AM
thanks NK
Why do we think we know the best way over the rest of the world?Your politicians (I'm Canadian) are protecting the interests of the corporations that line their pockets.

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 06:13 AM
Tom, what is civilization if the young and healthy don't care for the sick and old, We would be no different than animals.

Interesting question. I agree but am vehemently opposed to the government compelling me the be charitable. Where is the virtue in my giving if I am forced to do so ?

Throughout history humans answered your question by providing intergenerational care for their families . There was no government compulsion to do so.

So if now it takes a government mandate to compel us to take care of our parents what does it say about our evolution ? Perhaps we really are no different than animals.

parttime
Jan 26, 2010, 06:19 AM
parttime, I wasn't the one that started this by comparing mandatory health insurance with mandatory car insurance now was I?


Touche' (spelling?)

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 06:21 AM
It's weird the mindthink that occurs, people in universal healthcare countries view their taxation for healthcare as contributing to their own plan, not to others, because that's exactly what it is.

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 06:27 AM
If it's only a matter of insuring myself I have coverage for myself and my family already. But it isn't really about that is it ?

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 06:28 AM
You're one of the lucky ones. Have a gander at the Health and Wellness forums on this site. Maybe you can help there.

parttime
Jan 26, 2010, 06:36 AM
Interesting question. I agree but am vehemently opposed to the government compelling me the be charitable. Where is the virtue in my giving if I am forced to do so ?

Throughout history humans answered your question by providing intergenerational care for their families . There was no government compulsion to do so.

So if now it takes a government mandate to compel us to take care of our parents what does it say about our evolution ? Perhaps we really are no different than animals.

Tom you know, what ancient man did for there sick and old, carry food and water, shelter, defense right to burying the remains. They in essences did what ever it takes, maybe it's the time that health care is what it takes? Do we stand like man of old and do what is necessary or do we continue to slide the other way?

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 06:39 AM
You're one of the lucky ones. Have a gander at the Health and Wellness forums on this site. Maybe you can help there.
The vast majority of the American people are also the lucky ones . What is being discussed is a fundamental reorganization of a large percent of the American economy into a controlled economy to satisfy the ones who fall through the nannystate gaps.
Those who lament that the so called reform is stalled have no one to blame but the Democrats over-reach. Had they proposed common sense modest tweeking of the system that also addressed some of the concerns of the minority party they could've done something useful .

Instead ,what they continue to insist upon is a system the United States people reject.

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 06:45 AM
The conservatives had 8 years in power and did nothing of that "tweaking" you speak of. Maybe the OP can chime in with his/her thoughts.

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 07:31 AM
The conservatives had 8 years in power and did nothing of that "tweaking" you speak of. Maybe the OP can chime in with his/her thoughts.

The Republicans controlled Congress for a dozen years before the 2006 Democrat takeover .

In that time they proposed and passed SCHIP and a massive expansion in entitlements with the Medicare Part D plan.

President Bush also doubled direct federal financing for community health centers in poor areas ;and granted Massachusetts a Medicaid waiver to help start their health insurance program.

President Bush also did more than any of the previous Presidents combined ($50 billion ) to give foreign aid to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

2007 during his state of the union address ,President Bush proposed a health care reform plan that would've addressed much of the concerns with the current system and still retain the private sector control . Making Health Care Affordable: Bush's Bold Health Tax Reform Plan (http://www.heritage.org/research/HealthCare/wm1316.cfm)

Parttime;the argument here is not that the system doesn't need to be reformed. It is the direction that the reform will take. I am and will continue to be opposed to plans run by the government . That is too much power for any government of free people to have.

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 07:54 AM
President Bush also did more than any of the previous Presidents combined ($50 billion ) to give foreign aid to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.How nice for foreign nations.

2
007 during his state of the union address ,President Bush proposed a health care reform plan that would've addressed much of the concerns with the current system and still retain the private sector control . Making Health Care Affordable: Bush's Bold Health Tax Reform Plan (http://www.heritage.org/research/HealthCare/wm1316.cfm)
About that:
Democrats To Oppose Bush's Health Tax Plans (http://www.tax-news.com/archive/story/Democrats_To_Oppose_Bushs_Health_Tax_Plans_xxxx261 78.html)

[President George W. Bush's plan to expand access to affordable health insurance coverage through reform of the tax code has drawn fire from Democrats in the wake of his State of the Union address, casting doubt on whether it will emerge in the form of new legislation from the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Hinting at the likely wider Democrat response to Bush's proposals, which seek to even the playing field between the self-insured and employer-insured, Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, argued that the plan would hurt middle-income Americans, because employers will shift even more cost and risk to their employees.
"The President's so-called health care proposal won't help the uninsured, most of whom have limited incomes and are already in low tax brackets," he argued.
"Under the guise of tax breaks, the President is pursuing a policy designed to destroy the employer-based health care system through which 160 million people receive coverage," contended Stark. "But in the individual insurance market, people will be denied coverage because of family history, existing illnesses, or genetic makeup. They'll also be unable to take advantage of the cost savings that currently result from sharing risk company-wide."
Stark argued that Medicare is better placed to provide low cost and stable healthcare coverage to low income and elderly patients than the private healthcare coverage, and he indicated that he would oppose Bush's plan in committee.
"President Bush's proposal will make a bad problem worse," he said.
"I do not intend to consider this particular health care proposal in the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, but would be happy to meet with the President to consider alternative ideas, starting with the expansion of Medicare," Stark concluded.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D - Ore), who was consulted by the administration on health tax reform as part of its wider tax reform agenda, also expressed doubts that Bush's proposals would achieve their goals.
"To fix health care, there are four essentials. The test of any health reform proposal should be: does the proposal get affordable coverage to every American; does it hold down health care costs; does it strengthen the health care system over time; and does it encourage wellness and prevention?," Wyden observed, adding that:
"It is not clear that the President's plan passes any of these tests."
Under Bush's proposals, families with health insurance will not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $15,000 in compensation, while singles will not pay these taxes on the first $7,500 of their income. At the same time, health insurance would be considered taxable income under the proposals. States would also get help to make affordable health insurance more widely available to their residents.


parttime;the argument here is not that the system doesn't need to be reformed. It is the direction that the reform will take. I am and will continue to be opposed to plans run by the government . That is too much power for any government of free people to have.You should fear it actually, your politicians are bought and sold by corporations and you're OK with that.

speechlesstx
Jan 26, 2010, 08:05 AM
It's weird the mindthink that occurs, people in universal healthcare countries view their taxation for healthcare as contributing to their own plan, not to others, because that's exactly what it is.

Funny, that's how I see my Social Security payments, contributing to my own plan. My contribution has already been spent... doesn't exactly inspire confidence in contributing to my own government run health care plan.

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 08:09 AM
The test of any health reform proposal should be: does the proposal get affordable coverage to every American; does it hold down health care costs; does it strengthen the health care system over time; and does it encourage wellness and prevention?,"

Lol ;the current plans being considered fail on all those accounts.

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 08:11 AM
lol ;the current plans being considered fail on all those accounts.
Wrong again.

speechlesstx
Jan 26, 2010, 08:49 AM
Wrong again.

Support that please. Besides, Axelrod told us the other day we won't know what's in the plan until they pass it.

NeedKarma
Jan 26, 2010, 09:24 AM
Support that please. Besides, Axelrod told us the other day we won't know what's in the plan until they pass it.Hey doesn't that apply to your friend tom? He said they fail without knowing what's in the plan. Shouldn't he support his position?

tomder55
Jan 26, 2010, 10:46 AM
I've seen the CBO reports ;it doesn't save money ;it doesn't make it more affordable ;it weakens private sector plans and even Medicare supplemental plans ;and at best it adds 10 million uninsured into the system.
Finally it is a budget buster . They have to collect taxes for 3-4 years before they even begin to provide the benefits they are promising .

cdad
Jan 26, 2010, 05:39 PM
What gets me the most about all this is that the nations they try to hold up for having national health care.. yes like Canada are filled with the stories of people dying while waiting for this terrific government healthcare. I guess that's one way to save social security is by having those that reach the elder age die off faster then the payments come in.

parttime
Jan 27, 2010, 06:34 AM
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Cal, just one of many things to look at.

tomder55
Jan 27, 2010, 07:01 AM
I'm packing my bags and moving to Macau .Clearly they have a superior health care system than we do !

NeedKarma
Jan 27, 2010, 07:11 AM
Seems nice: File:Macau Penha Hill.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macau_Penha_Hill.jpg)