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!:)

<moved to Politics>

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.

Richard H. Collins at Town Hall explains it well.
Townhall.com::Forget 9-1-1&#226;€&#166; In Case of Emergency Call 1-800-HILLARY::By Richard H. Collins (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RichardHCollins/2007/09/21/forget_9-1-1%E2%80%A6_in_case_of_emergency_call_1-800-hillary)


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.



Bobby

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.

Here's my point of view.

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 money 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

Here's my point of view.

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!

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 have no health insurance but I can't see forcing anybody to have to have health insurance if they do not want it. I am tired of the government telling us what we must have and do and what we can and can't. I do better on my herbal remedies than anybody my age that the doctors have on tons of different prescriptions. I think it is a way for the pharmacies to make even more money. Whatever happened that Hillary flipped from wanted socialized health care to this mandatory health insurance? I guess that 5,000. She wants for every newborn can go directly to the mandated health insurance?

Hello nikki:

I think the insurance companies should butt OUT of the equation. The government should just pay the doctors bills and that's that. No bureaucracy and no forced nothing on anybody (including doctors) - just check writing. They do that pretty good.

Certainly, if you took out what the insurance companies make in profit, and it's in the jillions, what people pay in insurance premiums would be converted into taxes and then we could easily pay for EVERYBODY'S heath care. Yes, the doctors could still earn six figure incomes.

It IS true, that if you want toys installed on your chest, or a quick tummy tuck, you'll have to pay extra. That's fine with me. However, if we nationalized the pharmaceutical industry at the same time, we'd have enough money left over for tummy tucks too...

That's a hell of thing to be called for by a libertariain – but health care should be like the highways – free for everybody to use. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist.

excon

I think the insurance companies should butt OUT of the equation. The government should just pay the doctors bills and that's that. No bureaucracy and no forced nothing on anybody (including doctors) - just check writing. They do that pretty good.

I like that idea so then I can have my doctor bill the government for 3x what the service cost and give back 50% of what he bills the government for. So I can make a profit going to the doctor.
or...
The government is going to set a price that they will pay for each procedure which will be below the average cost cause the government picks the lowest bidder and I end up getting my spleen taken out by Dr. Nick who was suppose to take out my gall bladder.

The government needs to take the libitarian stance on this and empower the people. Right now people don't get health insurance cause they don't need it. They get great care going to the emergancy room every time the have stuffed up nose. The government needs to back off and let hospital turn away people that don't have a life threating situation. The government needs to do something about frivialous lawsuits and unfair pay outs. The government needs to make it so that health insureance companies have a reason to keep cost low. Maybe then people will get the idea that they need health insurance and can afford it.

I guess part of the trouble is that everyone today in the US does have some level of health insurance, the trouble of it, is too many don't pay for it, they get it by having no private insurance and just showing up sick at the ER where the doctors have to see you. They can't pay the bill, so it is passed on to you and me who do have insurance and pay the bills.

I have a concern that seems to get put on the back burner when it comes to health reform. Some doctors are in a good habit about asking how certain medicines or procedures will effect your budget. However, many don't and will zap you and your insurance provider with reckless overcharging.



Bobby

Present system is "broken", too many people still uninsured... Taxpayers, hospitals, doctors, clinics are passing the cost along to those who pay ins premiums resulting in high med ins cost to those who can afford and can qualify for med insurance. But WE DO NOT NEED mandatory health insurance nor the govt regulation, intervention that would accompany such mandatory insurance. I do not know what the answer is... sorry

Present system is "broken", too many people still uninsured... Taxpayers, hospitals, doctors, clinics are passing the cost along to those who pay ins premiums resulting in high med ins cost to those who can afford and can qualify for med insurance. But WE DO NOT NEED mandatory health insurance nor the govt regulation, intervention that would accompany such mandatory insurance. I do not know what the answer is .... sorry


I agree. There has to be some sort of regulatory in place though. The traditional thought is that if a person is unsatisfied with the expenses or practice, the patient could shop elsewhere for a new doctor/clinic. But the whole thing is so out of sorts that doctor shopping is just a temporary fix. Most of us are tired of making payments on our physician's new Benz.


Bobby

Let me throw out a proposition. We get car insurance not to pay for oil changes and 1 year maintenance checks but for more major work . Perhaps the same principle should apply to medical insurance. Maybe only catastrophic or higher expense procedures should be covered as a basic plan. Do you think that would help control the costs ?

Tom, that was the original idea behind health insurance... catastrophic care coverage, not day-to-day care.

The problem with health coverage started when insurance companies stated getting involved with day-to-day coverage. Once the day-to-day coverage became the norm, and insurance companies, rather than individuals, became the primary payment method of the medical industry, the result was that insurance companies were able to force price fixing into the system. In order to compensate (and get compensated), doctors had to find ways to "game" the system... extra tests, multiple diagnoses, over-treatment, etc. The result was rising medical costs. The same thing happened for pharmaceutical companies.

In my opinion, this can be fixed by doing exactly what you just said... get insurane companies out of the day-to-day care business and leave them in place for catastrophic coverage only. That way they have less of a say in the industry, the price-fixing ends, and doctors and pharmaceutical companies can stop gaming the system and just charge a fair market rate for care.

The other thing that needs to be addressed is tort reform. The ability of individuals to frivolously sue health care providers for unreasonable sums of money forces practitioners to pay huge sums for malpractice insurance coverage. A typical Ob-Gyn these days pays most of his income to insurance companies... even if he has never been sued. Without that coverage, they can't practice. And it isn't the malpractice insurance companies faults either... they have a risk of having to pay out millions for every suit or claim, a risk which is too often met, and they need to make money too. So they charge huge amounts for their coverage. So the doctors have to charge more for care in order to cover their insurance expenses. And we get screwed.

The only way to stop this is through tort reform. But what type of tort reform? For years we have heard about capping the amounts of the suits, caping punitive awards, setting time limits, etc. I have a different idea.

My idea is to set up grand-juries for civil cases.

In a criminal case, a grand jury determined whether the prosecutors have enough of a case to charge the defendant and go forward with the case. Cases where the grand jury feels that the prosecutor does not have enough to go forward are rejected.

I would like to see a similar system put in place for civil suits, especially medical malpractice cases. That would accomplish several things:

- Frivolous suits will be kicked out of court early in the process, but cases with merit will continue forward. We would not have to limit awards, because only cases with real merit will go forward. The cases without merit will stop wasting the court's time and money.

- Plaintiffs will ALWAYS get their cases heard by a jury, if only a grand jury, so they will always have the chance to have their case heard. And if they can't convince a grand jury that there is a case, they probably would not have been able to convince a petite jury either.

- Wait times for civil cases will be shorter.

- Outrageous awards for frivolous cases will be limitted without limiting the awards for cases with merit.

- Because there will be fewer cases going to trial, malpractice insurance costs will decrease, and insurance premiums will follow. This in turn will lower doctors' expenses and thus medical care costs to individuals.

In my opinion, it's a win-win situation for everyone, including the plaintiffs, the defendants, the courts, the insurance companies, the doctors and the patients.

So that's my idea. Now... how do I go about presenting it to law-makers?

So that's my idea. Now... how do I go about presenting it to law-makers?Hello El:

It already IS law. If a judge thinks a lawsuit is frivolous, he can dismiss it. That decision can be appealed. If several judges together DON’T think a lawsuit is frivolous, I’d believe ‘em. You don’t. I don't know why.

Yes, I do. Because you are bummed that some lady got rich because she spilled coffee in her lap. And, because of that anomaly, you want to take away everybody else’s right to sue.

Like most right wingers, you never consider how the laws you want to make work where the rubber meets the road. However, let me make a supposition. If your family member was maimed, I’ll bet you wouldn’t want your award to be capped….

excon

So that's my idea. Now... how do I go about presenting it to law-makers?

Currently you have to buy a congressman and from what I hear they aren't cheap.

excon,

I don't want to take away someone's right to sue. What I want to do is eliminate frivolous lawsuits by screening them before they ever get to a judge.

And no, I don't trust judges. Especially those in the 9th Circuit. I'd rather trust 12 lay men and women than 3 judges. Wouldn't you?

As you are a libertarian, I wonder why you disagree with that. Certainly taking power away from the government and putting it back into the hands of the people would appeal to you as a small-government supporter. So I'm just wondering exactly why you don't agree with this idea.

Elliot

We all pay out of the pocket for frivilous suits in higher premium rates . If judges are determining it then they need to go back to school and learn what is or isn't frivilous.

The lawyers game the system and make such outrageous claims that more often than not the insurance company make a determination to cut bait and settle .This is true in both medical and in auto insurance.

What does that mean?. $30,000 dollars awarded for a parking lot fender bender in a case we were involved in. It was originally a multi-million dollar case.

The lawyers for both parties take their slice and meet at the watering hole to celebrated their scam and I took the earliest possible opportunity to dump them and find new coverage.

I don't want to take away someone's right to sue. What I want to do is eliminate frivolous lawsuits by screening them before they ever get to a judge. Hello again, Elliot:

I love juries. I trust my peers. But, the way the system works NOW, is that a party to a lawsuit can request a jury trial ifin he wants. We don't need TWO juries, now do we?

Wolverine, as a conservative, I wonder why you want to make new law that requires a new bureaucracy and new taxes to support? Right now, the ONLY part of government that works IS the judicial system. We shouldn't tinker with it. Mandatory sentencing was bad enough...

excon

You clearly DIDN'T READ MY POST!!!Hello again, El:

Yeah, I missed that part.

excon

Let me throw out a proposition. We get car insurance not to pay for oil changes and 1 year maintainance checks but for more major work . Perhaps the same principle should apply to medical insurance. Maybe only catastrophic or higher expense procedures should be covered as a basic plan. Do you think that would help control the costs ?


Tom-

I accidentally hit a key that finished my rating before I could finish my comment. The rating comment when finished should had read, "BABRAM agrees: Good point. I'll add to the subject."

Anyway concerning your post above: Yes, I do think that would help. In fact it might get two birds with one stone. For example, I 've seen people use the insurance frivolously, usually in trying to find something wrong to get out of work, and the Doctors oblige, of course, since it's a business. Those same people, IMO for the most part are lazy, are the ones that as Elliot mentioned, need to be dealt with in Tort reform.


Bobby

Hello again, Elliot:

I love juries. I trust my peers. But, the way the system works NOW, is that a party to a lawsuit can request a jury trial ifin he wants. We don't need TWO juries, now do we?

Apparently we do... the grand jury system has been in place for over a century in criminal cases. Apparently TWO juries works just fine there.


Wolverine, as a conservative, I wonder why you want to make new law that requires a new bureaucracy and new taxes to support? Right now, the ONLY part of government that works IS the judicial system.

That's where we disagree... I think the tort system is VERY broken. Tom's post above illustrates that pretty well. As for needing a new bureaucracy and new taxes... why? Why would that be necessary? We already have the system in place. As I said, the grand jury system has been in place in criminal law for over a century. I'm just talking about expanding it to include civil cases. The cost of such an expansion would be minimal.


We shouldn't tinker with it. Mandatory sentencing was bad enough...

Excon

I'm a big believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But I'm also a believer that "if it is broke, then it needs fixin'". And our tort system IS broken. It is costing us --- you and me--- huge money in insurance costs, healthcare costs, etc. Not to mention that it is driving practitioners out of the industry, which limits choice within the industry.

Short story long, a civil-court grand-jury system is a libertarian's wet dream. It limits government interference, gives that power back to the people, lowers costs of insurance and healthcare, increases freedom of choice, allows cases with merit to go through the system without capping awards, and eliminates the majority of frivolous lawsuits, with little to no cost or bureaucracy involved in expanding the already existing criminal grand-jury system. What's not to like?

Elliot

Update :

According to the Politico web site an internal White House memo from the Clinton reign was discovered . Hillary's staff saw programs like SCHIP as a precursor to universal care if she could not get her full program accepted.


“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

Battle of sound bites reaches health care - Martin Kady II - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6111.html)

As we have seen many times ;if a comprehensive plan is not palatable often times law makers will administer it to us a little at a time (with a spoon full of sugar if necessary but utilizing a suppository if necessary) .