Say Anything Blog

Their system is slightly different then the US, in that the private insurers are at least regulated

Private insurance isn’t regulated? Somehow I highly doubt that.

...and is like a tax because it will be a graduated tax based on income.

Correction: it is a tax.

Of course I don’t know why we just can’t roll everybody into Medicare...

Simple: I don’t want to be on a government system. I don’t want to be forced to discuss “my” health care with people like you. I don’t trust the government and don’t want them to control the purse strings. That simple enough?

...and then increase the payroll tax, equivalent to an amount equal to what employers now pay to cover employees. You could split the costs between employee and employer any way that seemed fair.

More taxes. Great. A world economy will love that as business moves to countries where it is cheaper to do business. What is “fair”?

In the end, the consumer pays for all of it, regardless of how much you try to hide the costs by splitting it between employee and employer.

This would spread the cost of health care more evenly through the economy...

Why is this fair? Why should I be paying for someone who overate, overdrank, did drugs, and doesn’t exercise? Why does the cost of health care need to be “more evenly” spread? Doesn’t seem too fair to me.

...and level the playing field for business, by requiring all employers to contribute equally to health care...

Why? That’s not too fair. This proposal of yours raises the cost of doing business.

...not just those socially responsible employers.

Define “socially responsible”. Who determines what is and what isn’t “socially responsible”?

It will also take much of the pressure of hospital emergency rooms since virtually everyone in the country will be insured, and have access to a primary care physician, leaving the emergency rooms for true emergencies.

Proof?

Gotta love these reader submitted posts by socialists who want to expand the role of the federal government beyond Constitutionally permitted grounds.

Then educate me, who requlates it? Who tells United Health Group, Aetna how much they can charge for health insurance?

Oh..you meant regulate the price. You didn’t state that. Why did you say, “in that the private insurers are at least regulated”? Do you think that regulating prices is a good thing? I ask because your “at least” modifier suggests that you do.

But you trust some equally competent/incompetent private insurer, who is more concerned with profit then providing care, to pull the purse strings?

I have choice there. If I don’t trust one, I can shop around. You want to take that freedom away and leave me with just one choice. To that I say no thanks. Questionable is that the government would be more concerned with providing care than profit. You seem to believe that it is a given. I look around at government’s “successes” in these matters and question why you would believe it.

You’re right, in the end the consumer pays, so what’s your point?

My point is that you’re hiding the price much like the price is hidden in regards to Social “Security” payments. It is dishonest and is a big red flag.

Well you already are. Under the current system that person doesn’t have to buy insurance, and if he works his employer doesn’t have to provide him insurance. But if he wants he can still go to an emergency room and get care. And who do you think pays for that? At least under the system I laid out, if he is working then at least he is contributing to his own care.

And under the system we have now, the hospital can go to a collection agency that will garnish wages to pay for the hospital bill. Your solution solves a problem that doesn’t exist.

But it’s fair to let just a few companies pay a disproportionate share of the cost of providing health care to the US population.

Those companies made a choice to provide health care. You want to take away that choice and make it a requirement. This adds tremendous overhead to the cost of starting up a business and benefits the already-established businesses who are used to providing a health care benefit. And who decides what is “fair” to begin with? Are you the arbiter of what is “fair” and what is not?

I do! The system we have established in the US depends on business to provide health insurance. Those that do are ’socially responsible’ businesses. Those that don’t are freeloaders.

How are they “freeloaders” and why do you appoint yourself as our better in regards to what is and what is not “socially responsible”? Seems a bit egotistical and conceited on your part. At least you admit it. I’ll give you that.

None, the logic just seem overwhelming! If you have insurance, why go to the emergency room and wait 6 hours or more to get care.

So no proof. It just “seems” that it would be that way. Okay.

What section of the constitution restricts that?

Thirteenth Amendment. “Involuntary servitude” for things you deem “fair” and “socially responsible”.

I knew I’d get somebody’s dander up!

Hardly. I’m the one who approved your post and corrected two mistakes.

Private insurance isn’t regulated? Somehow I highly doubt that.

Then educate me, who requlates it?  Who tells United Health Group, Aetna how much they can charge for health insurance?

Simple: I don’t trust the government and don’t want them to control the purse strings.

But you trust some equally competent/incompetent private insurer, who is more concerned with profit then providing care, to pull the purse strings?

More taxes. Why? In the end, the consumer pays for all of it, regardless of how much you try to hide the costs by splitting it between employee and employer.

You’re right, in the end the consumer pays, so what’s your point?

And you don’t consider what a business pays to cover its employees a tax?  It’s still a cost of doing business.  You can call it what ever you want.

Why should I bepaying for someone who overate, overdrank, did drugs, and doesn’t exercise?

Well you already are. Under the current system that person doesn’t have to buy insurance, and if he works his employer doesn’t have to provide him insurance.  But if he wants he can still go to an emergency room and get care.  And who do you think pays for that?  At least under the system I laid out, if he is working then at least he is contributing to his own care.

Why? That’s not too fair (requiring all businesses to provide health insurance. This proposal of yours raises the cost of doing business

But it’s fair to let just a few companies pay a disproportionate share of the cost of providing health care to the US population. 

Who determines what is and what isn’t “socially responsible”?

I do!  The system we have established in the US depends on business to provide health insurance.  Those that do are ‘socially responsible’ businesses.  Those that don’t are freeloaders.

Proof? that emergency rooms will be less burdened with non emergencies.

None, the logic just seem overwhelming!  If you have insurance, why go to the emergency room and wait 6 hours or more to get care.

expand the role of the federal government beyond Constitutionally permitted grounds

What section of the constitution restricts that?  So I guess medicare and medicaid are unconstitutional?  Hopefully Judge Alito will take care of that screw up.

Almost forgot!

Gotta love these reader submitted posts by socialists

I knew I’d get somebody’s dander up!

Not providing healthcare is a way to increase profit.

Ten biggest health care frauds, starting with the Frist family empire.

CA The Healthcare Company (formerly known as Columbia HCA), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States, pled guilty to criminal conduct and agreed to pay more than $840 million in criminal fines, civil penalties and damages for unlawful billing practices. Of this amount, $731,400,000 was recovered under the False Claims Act. Underthe settlement agreement, HCA’s payment will resolve five allegations regarding the manner in which it bills the U.S. government and the states for health care costs. HCA ‘s frauds on the taxpaying public included: billing for lab tests that were not medically necessary and not ordered by physicians, “upcoding” medical problems in order to get higher reimbursements for more serious medical issues, billing the government for advertising under the guise of “community education,”

Nobody went to jail in this criminal case.

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2005/09/top-10-us-health-fraud-cases.html

What about those of us that don’t want to be forced into the medicare system? I guess we don’t have rights.

The self appointed deemers of what is “fair” and what is “social justice” don’t realize this The Whistler. Either that or they don’t want to acknowledge it.

What about those of us that don’t want to be forced into the medicare system?  I guess we don’t have rights.

Do you think that regulating prices is a good thing?

I have choice there. If I don’t trust one, I can shop around.

I’m the one who approved your post and corrected two mistakes

That’s being fair and balanced.  After all isn’t that why we communicate here, to get all points of view out there.  And a special thank you for correcting the errors.

And under the system we have now, the hospital can go to a collection agency that will garnish wages

Not if the person isn’t working, and doesn’t own anything, or owns so little it would cost more to try and collect.

What about those of us that don’t want to be forced into the medicare system? I guess we don’t have rights.

Health care should not be a for profit business except to purchase the items I indicated above.

So you believe that they should work for free then. Not sure how that works in the real world,..oh wait, just check out the now disbanded U.S.S.R. Why you would want that for the health care insurance industry is beyond me.

And I’m sure that’s real easy to do, especially just after being diagnosed with cancer or other disease. The problem now is we don’t know how good or bad our insurance is until we get sick, and then it’s too late.

You’re attempting to excuse away my reason. The fact is - I do have choice. You want to take that choice away.

And a special thank you for correcting the errors.

If you’re curious - I put the “Read the entire article.” outside of the blockquotes and you had a double word, “...and level the the playing field”.

Not if the person isn’t working, and doesn’t own anything, or owns so little it would cost more to try and collect.

I was responding to this statement of yours - “At least under the system I laid out, if he is working then at least he is contributing to his own care.”

I realize that he would have to be working. That requirement is obvious. So again, your solution solves a problem that doesn’t exist.

You don’t have to participate. This is a free country. But you have paid into it, so you might as well use it.

So in other words, your dishonest double-talk aside, we have to participate. So much for the “free country” claim.

You are already required to pay into, but you don’t have to accept it. If you don’t want to pay into it, I suggest you change the law.

Ahhh..that socialist definition of “freedom” where we have people who claim to be the sole arbiters of what is “fair” and what is “social responsibility”.

Thanks for the added taxes with no discernable benefit. “Freedom” indeed.

The problem with socialized medicine is that you are trying to supply an unlimited supply of a product on a finite budget.  It just isn’t going to work, because once people get used to that unlimited supply they’re going to use more of it than they need, then the price we pay for health are will skyrocket.  Up and up it will go.  It wouldn’t solve any of the problems we have now an would only create more.

If we want to solve the health care problem we need to go back to cash-for-service.  People paying for their own bills.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: This is one of the reasons the free enterprise system works so well.  The function of price is to ration, not to accomplish social engineering goals. It is why raising the price of gasoline artificially through taxes doesn’t work, and is also the reason for the healthcare crisis.  If the user doesn’t pay the bill, the rationing process doesn’t function.  You can always posit infinite demand and limited supply, so price is the adjustment mechanism.  I know you said essentially the same thing, but in a different way.  I’m just in love with the free enterprise economic system, and with the sacred law of supply and demand.

But I don’t see anything useful they do with the profit. Health care should not be a for profit business except to purchase the items I indicated above.

Profit goes to the employees, executives, and shareholders.  They do deserve compensation and return for working in and investing in an in demand business.  I don’t see anything useful that a lot of industries do with their profits, but I wouldn’t deprive them of it.  It’s immoral.

The problem now is we don’t know how good or bad our insurance is until we get sick, and then it’s too late.

You would solve this by consolidating insurance into one policy (or a few policies) paid for by income taxes?

The problem with socialized medicine is that you are trying to supply an unlimited supply of a product on a finite budget.

I agree.

If we want to solve the health care problem we need to go back to cash-for-service. People paying for their own bills.

I disagree.

Insurance is a fair and legitimate way to manage risk.  Except for an elite group (far beyond the Dems qualification of the fabulously wealthy), there is a small chance that you will get hit with a disease that is beyond your means to care for. 

Insurance companies still fight to keep medical costs down and try not to allow excessive treatment.  It is not unreasonable to believe that insurance companies can be responsible and keep healthcare from inflating out of control.

I prefer to think of them as human and moralistic views. The right to health care happens to be one of them.

How much health care is appropriate?  Does a serially unemployed layabout deserve the same doctors as the president or prime minister?  Should the rich even be able to pay for better treatment should they need it?  Health care cannot be universalized because were everyone to get perfect treatment, it would bankrupt the nation.

Well that is the law! Not much I can do about it, if even if I wanted to, which I don’t.

You were talking about medicare.  We would like to opt out of Medicare; we do not want to be forced into SuperMedicare.
Did you really not understand what he was saying?

WOW! I never expected such a heated debate.  I’m just sorry that I’ve gotten a little behind here.  To go on....

They do deserve compensation and return for working in and investing in an in demand business.

Employees deserve just compensation for doing a job, maybe even a bonus for doing a particular job.  Companies need profit to invest in newer and better products to provide better service or products that the customer wants.  Don’t confuse compensation with profit.

The problem with health insurance companies making a profit, is they do it by denying coverage and/or not insuring sick people.  The reason auto insurance and home owners insurance works so well is everybody needs it.  Banks require it if you have a mortgage on your house or car, spreading the risk more evenly.  Premiums are then based on driving records and or your zip code.

That is not the case with health insurance.  There is no requirement to purchase it, so the cost is not distributed equally.  The ones who have it pay a disproportionate share to cover those who refuse to carry it. That’s why our present system is so flawed.

I actually would have no problem with the current system, even if companies were taken out of the equation, as long as everyone was required to purchase insurance. I also believe the profit motive needs to be taken out of the equation, cause it would lead some unscrupulous (it’s just human nature) people do deny coverage and/or care even when needed.

Principally it puts American business at an unfair disadvantage when competing with overseas companies.

Not if you think about it.  You pay higher taxes when there is state health insurance.  Since the money has to come from somewhere, if both systems are equally efficient, after tax/after insurance incomes are no higher when an employer moves to a country with state health insurance and pays the same wage.

2H9, I cannot see a method that the insurance companies can use to “balloon” the amount of money to be made.  If you can outline it, please do.  As it stands, the administrative paperwork and record keeping are worth 20-25% of medical costs.

I maintain that high deductible insurance for the worst case scenario is a worthwhile method to manage risk.

John, healthcare costs are spiraling out of control because of the interference of government and the insurance industry’s balloning of the amount of money to be made. By removing the controlling influence of the traditional"pay as you go” system, we have allowed an uncontrolled growth of cost unrelated to actual healthcare. We have thousands of people in the healthcare industry who have nothing to do with practicing medicine. They file paperwork that goes in a circle, sucking up vast amounts of money. They need actual, productive jobs. Such as agriculture,manufactoring, or construction. Record keeping for medical purposes is nescesary. For insurance and government purposes it is a waste and a drain on the overall medical system.

More clearly, it’s when the government gets involved where there’s a problem.

You’re attempting to excuse away my reason. The fact is - I do have choice. You want to take that choice away

What I’m really trying to tell you is “you don’t have a real choice”.  You only think you do.

So in other words, your dishonest double-talk aside, we have to participate. So much for the “free country” claim

Well that is the law! Not much I can do about it, if even if I wanted to, which I don’t.

Thanks for the added taxes with no discernable benefit. “Freedom” indeed.

Well there is a benefit, at least in my mind. What ever you want to call them, the costs still have to be paid, and are paid.  I would just prefer those costs to be shared more equitably.

I don’t think the system we have in place right now is fair.  Principally it puts American business at an unfair disadvantage when competing with overseas companies. (See, deep down I am a capitalist). I just believe in some causes that some might consider “socialist views”.  I prefer to think of them as human and moralistic views.  The right to health care happens to be one of them.

I consider myself fortunate. I have a job, and I do have health insurance.  I am also close enough to retirement, that if I should lose my job it wouldn’t be a particular problem.  That wasn’t always the case, and I don’t think it is fair that others should be saddled with the added stress of having to worry about paying for health care, on top of losing a job, especially if they are sick.

Except for an elite group (far beyond the Dems qualification of the fabulously wealthy), there is a small chance that you will get hit with a disease that is beyond your means to care for.

You misunderstood.  I was saying the reverse.  I was saying that almost all Americans have more than a trivial risk of being hit with bills beyond their means.  That’s when I was saying that insurance is good. (not free insurance, though)

2H9 and Rob were saying no insurance for anybody

Marc said,

What a stupid comment. You are the living definition of an idiot!

Thank you.  You are the living definition of a truly compassionate man.

It is not my problem if you make yourself susceptible to health problems.

John, tell me how I made myself susceptible to getting sick? Tell us all, so no one else in the world will ever get sick again. Please, I beg you, tell me what I did?

sorry, I meant to say it is not my problem if you make yourself unable to afford treatment, that is if you don’t buy basic insurance.

ySo you don’t have “uninsured motorist” in case some uninsured motorist hits you, and you don’t have collision to fix your care in the event the accident was your fault?

The point was that it doesn’t affect me when people don’t buy health insurance, but it may affect me as a driver when people don’t buy auto insurance, or as a lender when they don’t buy homeowners insurance.  That’s why it doesn’t make sense to force anyone to buy health insurance, as long as no one gets health care at my expense.

Ok, I’m starting to have trouble keeping up.

Should the rich even be able to pay for better treatment should they need it?

Yes, I never said to elimiate private insurance.  Everyone should be able to purchase extra insurance to pay for better treatment or to cover more of the expense. 

I also never said that the insurance should be totally free either.  I have no problem with co-pays to address the Moral Hazard concept.

You need auto insurance in case you hurt someone, so you can pay their bills.

It is not my problem if you make yourself susceptible to health problems.

John, tell me how I made myself susceptible to getting sick?  Tell us all, so no one else in the world will ever get sick again.  Please, I beg you, tell me what I did? 

I am 5’10” 158 lbs.  I am a competitive cyclist with a resting heart rate of 42 bpm.  I have never smoked nor taken any drugs, except for the occasional Advil, Aspirin or anti-biotic when absolutely required.

What I have managed to do was stay alive for 57 years, living and breathing.

What a stupid comment.  You are the living definition of an idiot!

Btw, my mom has MS, I know what it means to have high medical bills.  My parents are in the wealthiest quarter or so, and still would not be able to afford it without insurance.  In fact, it is because of the most expensive diseases why we cannot afford such universal health coverage.  An 80 year old that never worked does not get the most expensive anti-cancer drugs.  No society could afford that.

The problem with health insurance companies making a profit, is they do it by denying coverage and/or not insuring sick people.

Good point, but again, health care isn’t necessarily a universal right.

Companies need profit to invest in newer and better products to provide better service or products that the customer wants. Don’t confuse compensation with profit.

Companies need profit to reimburse shareholders, too.  There is no law that a company need to invest profit responsibly.  Health care is no different, as it is not a universal right.

I’m sure you only got offensive because you thought I was a jerk.  An honest mistake because I did misspeak once.  I forgive you.

Actually, I am a jerk, so you may just be intuitive.  In any case, have a good night.

Btw, my mom has MS, I know what it means to have high medical bills. My parents are in the wealthiest quarter or so, and still would not be able to afford it without insurance. In fact, it is because of the most expensive diseases why we cannot afford such universal health coverage. An 80 year old that never worked does not get the most expensive anti-cancer drugs. No society could afford that.

John, now it sounds like you’re on my side.  I don’t get it.  I am really confused.  Maybe it’s just late, and I am getting old.  That’s 2 now.  I think it’s time for bed.

Sorry if I offended you in my last post, I do tend to get emotional sometimes.

I actually would have no problem with the current system, even if companies were taken out of the equation, as long as everyone was required to purchase insurance.

Being forced to buy health insurance is different from being forced to buy auto insurance and home owners insurance.  You need auto insurance in case you hurt someone, so you can pay their bills.  You need home owners insurance or the risk on mortgages would be to high to justify a loan.  There is no reason why everyone should be forced to buy health insurance.  It is not my problem if you make yourself susceptible to health problems.

I would tend toward a solution in the other direction. No free care. It’s a bit harsh, but I’m against the nanny state. There are problems associated with this too, but I make no game of solving them.  Let’s just say carry your insurance card where ever you go.

Insurance is a fair and legitimate way to manage risk.

True, but only if everyone is required to purchase it.

or better, if no one gets free insurance.

John, you must live in a dream world, or have more money then you know what to do with.

Insurance is a fair and legitimate way to manage risk.

Except for an elite group (far beyond the Dems qualification of the fabulously wealthy), there is a small chance that you will get hit with a disease that is beyond your means to care for.

I can assume by that statement you have never been sick, or as I said in the beginning, you are rich beyond your means.

Do you have any idea how much it costs for one chemotherapy treatment for cancer.

NEWS FLASH!!!  Lots of people get cancer.

It can cost upwards of $20,000 to $30,000 per treatment.  And you don’t just have one treatment.  For my cancer I could expect to have up to 6 treatments, plus a transplant that could cost several hundred thousand dollars.  I don’t have that much money, at least I wouldn’t have any left after I went for treatment, if I didn’t have insurance, which fortunately I do.  Plus the likelihood is I will need additional treatment.  What do you think would happen to me if I lost my job.  Who would insure me, even if I could afford the insurance.  HINT: Remember the profit motive.

Do you think that is fair?  How would you feel if that happened to you?

I didn’t mean to bring that part of my life into the discussion, because I have kept that part of life relatively secret, and I didn’t want anyone to think that may influence my thinking, which it hasn’t.  NOT!!!

2Hotel9, it sounds like you’re sort of on my side, but I wouldn’t have expected that from you. 

I must be mistaken, right?

Great thread. I can only add that the govt involvement in healthcare, along with almost universal insurance are the problem, not the solution.  If the supply of doctors wasn’t artifically limited by the AMA through restricting the number of admissions to med schools, as well as the number of med schools, the high compensation given to doctors would attract a greater supply of doctors, thus lowering the price.  If the govt and universal(not catastrophic) insurance coverage didn’t distort the price of healthcare, we might have a system which provided affordable care at every income level.  No one should have to pay for another’s care.  That’s unfair.

Likwid:

So you believe that they should work for free then. Not sure how that works in the real world,..oh wait, just check out the now disbanded U.S.S.R.

There’s a difference between “not for profit” and working for free. 

On that point Marc, not many “Not for profits” make major innovations in technology.

Further Marc, I’m not convinced that you understand the “market” let alone how the insurance industry works. 

Let’s start with the “Market”:

The “Market” is the exchange of goods from one person to another.  I’ll let Walter Williams explain:

With all the recent hype and demagoguery about gasoline price-gouging, maybe it’s time to talk about the basics of exchange. First, what is exchange? Exchange occurs when an owner transfers property rights or title to that which is his.

Here’s the essence of what transpires when I purchase a gallon of gasoline. In effect, I tell the retailer that I hold title to $3. He tells me that he holds title to a gallon of gas. I offer to transfer my title to $3 to him if he’ll transfer his title to a gallon of gas to me. If this exchange occurs voluntarily, what can be said about the transaction?

One thing we know for sure is that the retailer was free to retain his ownership of the gallon of gas and I my ownership of $3. That being the case, why would we exchange? The only answer is that I perceived myself as better off giving up my $3 for the gallon of gas and likewise the retailer perceived himself as better off giving up his gas for the $3. Otherwise, why would we have exchanged?

Read the rest of it… It may enlighten you.

As for the insurance industry:

They do not make money by gouging the poor, etc, etc.

They make money by pooling a collection of capital then investing that capital in the markets.  They get capital by you agreeing to pay them a certain fee for a years worth of protection against the financial burden of paying for health care, or auto problems, or house troubles…

They have teams of actuaries working diligently to create policies that retain the greatest chance of keeping as much as possible of what you pay… but it’s a gamble.  They take the risk.  To improve the odds, they sign up as many people as possible.  To this end, insurance companies talked large businesses into offering its’ employees health care so that the companies could offer that to prospective employees.  As businesses compete for labor in the “Market” they have to offer ever increasing benefits to the pool of workers so that they will work for them.  We do not have slave labor in the US.  The unemployment rate is nearly what is commonly considered rock bottom.  4.5% of the population works independently, not at all (by their choice), or fill contract roles that do not appear in the “employed” column of the rate report.  We are looking at .5% of population who state that they can’t find a job.  The specific people who are really not working due to not being able to find a job changes from month to month… Some find jobs while others loose them.  There are very few people who can not find a job for more than a few consecutive months.  Those people have no marketable skill, or have set their price for their time too high for the “Market” to bear.

As for medical costs:
The cost of medical care is based upon a lot of things.  We use it more today than ever before.  We DEMAND better care which drives up costs.  We live longer with frail bodies than ever before. 

I have heard so many stories of people who wanted an operation, but were denied by their insurance… they never even thought to ask the price if they paid for the procedure…

Rob is SOOOOOO right.  But let me take it a step further.

The Market has shown that people like not having to worry about their health care.  They like the idea of going to an office, getting fixed, then leaving with only having to pay $50/ visit.  They like that idea so much that the market responded.  MANY MANY people now seem to believe that they can only get seen by a doctor if they have insurance.  The cost of most doctors in my area for cash visits is $75.  The insurance company is covering a lousy $25 for me paying $400/month.  No, I don’t loose $400 from my pay check each month… but my employer reports, to the IRS, that they pay me what they send to the insurance company.

Insurance is not a requirement for health care.  It doesn’t make it easier.  It can help curb some fraud.  It can help defray the cost of a catastrophic illness, but the people who bear the cost should be aloud to choose to bear that cost.  Those that choose not to purchase health insurance should be prepared to pay for health care should they need it and if they can not pay for it.  Then they can seek help from those willing to aid those with little to offer.  Should they fail at that, then they will serve as an excellent example to the rest of us as how not to live one’s life.  Prepare for your future!  No one else should be expected to.

Seth Yantiss wrote:

Should they fail at that, then they will serve as an excellent example to the rest of us as how not to live one’s life.

I’m going to have to quote that somewhere.  Nice post.

Marc said, What I’m really trying to tell you is “you don’t have a real choice”. You only think you do.

Now you’ve added a modifier. A “real” choice. Just another attempt at excusing away the fact that I do have a choice in regards to health care insurance.

Well that is the law! Not much I can do about it, if even if I wanted to, which I don’t.

Yes Marc. I’m well aware that it is the law. That is beside the point. The relevant point I was making is that you said on one hand that, “You don’t have to participate.” and then right after saying that telling us that we have to pay for it anyways. That is dishonest double-talk.

I would just prefer those costs to be shared more equitably.

Why? That’s hardly fair. You want to take all choice away and lump the unhealthy in with the healthy. Why the need for equity?

I don’t think the system we have in place right now is fair. Principally it puts American business at an unfair disadvantage when competing with overseas companies.

How? Source?

(See, deep down I am a capitalist).

You’ll have to forgive me for not believing this at all. I think you’re a socialist through and through.

The right to health care happens to be one of them.

Rights are intrinsic and require no labor from others. Health care fails on both of those points. It is not a right.

That wasn’t always the case, and I don’t think it is fair that others should be saddled with the added stress of having to worry about paying for health care, on top of losing a job, especially if they are sick.

I don’t think it is “fair” either. Life isn’t fair. Sad fact. The thing to remember is that when you or someone else gets sick - I sympathize, but I can’t help it and did nothing to contribute to your sickness; so don’t bug me or demand that I pay for your failing body. There is nothing remotely “equitable” about your demands.

That is not the case with health insurance. There is no requirement to purchase it, so the cost is not distributed equally. The ones who have it pay a disproportionate share to cover those who refuse to carry it.

Could you elucidate on this? I do know one thing - we already pay for Medi"care" and most of us don’t recieve it.

And Marc - could you imagine the cost of an oil change if auto insurance covered it? What is now twelve to thirty bucks would cost a few hundred. Follow over to medical care with people making their insurance pay for every little thing. Most don’t even see the bill. They just pay their 20 dollar or whatever co-pay and are done.

There is almost no downward pressure on the market and no monetary incentive to stay healthy. Your proposal ensures that this fact stays the same.

Ok, I’m back, refreshed and ready to go, I hope.

John said:

The point was that it doesn’t affect me when people don’t buy health insurance

Well yes it does.  Maybe not just you individually, but it effects everyone.  Someone has to pay for that persons treatment, when he/she goes into an emergency room for care, and doesn’t have insurance.  Remember what likwidshoe said, “in the end the consumer pays”, or something to that effect.  You may not see the effects in your pocketbook right away, but it will be there.
Seth said:

not many “Not for profits” make major innovations in technology

Well duh!  And what sort of innovations has the health insurance industry made with all their profits? ($4 billion this year by United Health Group) Improved methods of handling health insurance claims.  I would hardly consider that an innovation.  An innovation would be anything that improves the health of individuals, i.e. pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, types of treatments. 

How many health insurance companies even have R&D departments to make these innovations?

I’m not convinced that you understand the “market” let alone how the insurance industry works

We’re not talking gasoline here.  I understand the free market, and I have no objection to oil companies making a profit, how else will they find new sources of oil and natural gas to fuel our cars and heat our homes.  And neither do I object to other companies that provide services and products we need to improve our living conditions.

I’ll ask again, what innovations has the health insurance given society to make our lives better?

As for the insurance industry........

Exactly!  I understand that completely.  The problem is nobody has to buy insurance, yet health care providers have to treat you.  That is the law!  I don’t think it is fair either, but that is the law!

So in the end those that buy the insurance are paying a disproportionate share of the burden to cover those who refuse to purchase the insurance.  Do you think that is fair?

That is the reason I have advocated for a single payer health care system where everyone has to pay.  That is the only way insurance can really be effective and spread the risk evenly. 

Remember, unlike car insurance, where you can elect to never drive or own a car, and not buy auto insurance, everyone does or will get sick eventually.  So for insurance to work properly everyone should be required to purchase insurance, so that costs can be spread equally among those that are currently or will be using it in the future.

BTW, does anyone have a problem with the requirement to purchase auto insurance if you own a car, or posting of a bond to cover any damage which may result from someone causing an accident or damage to someone else’s property?

Marc, John, here is a question for both of you. What is wrong with people paying for their healthcare? Insurance and government programs have inflated healthcare costs exponentially. When a third party pays for an item or service there is no reason to keep the cost of that service or item at a reasonable level. Anytime wife,boy, or I go to the doctor we pay for services rendered. We get prescriptions, we pay for them. Why is this a bad thing? Either of you. And spare us the catastrophic crisis scenario, I am talking everyday, regular healthcare. The type that each of you seems to think someone other than the patient should pay for.

likwidshoe said:

That is dishonest double-talk.

I wasn’t trying to be dishonest.  I was merely stating facts.  You have to contribute to Medicare, but you don’t have to participate in it when you turn 65.  That is a choice you have.  I don’t think it is a smart choice, but it is a choice.

so don’t bug me or demand that I pay for your failing body.

I’m not, I do have insurance, but what happens when you get sick, and you will eventually get sick, if you live long enough? Will you be able to take care of your own care?

If you have sufficient means, you may be able to.  Unfortunately not everyone is as fortunate as you and me.  I think it would be unfair for you to pick up the tab for someone else if they don’t or never had insurance, which is essentially the way the system works now.  Remember, hospital emergency rooms, by law, can not turn anyone away, regardless of their ability to pay. 

Principally it puts American business at an unfair disadvantage when competing with overseas companies

want to take all choice away and lump the unhealthy in with the healthy.

That is the only way that insurance can work effectively (read Seth’s pervious post).  Everyone will get sick eventually, so it isn’t fair for those who don’t need it right now not to participate.  That is one of the problems we have right now with our system, too many people don’t have insurance, and someone has to pay for their care when they get sick.  Remember that is the law.

and no monetary incentive to stay healthy

Why does there have to be a monetary incentive to stay healthy?  I would think that everyone would want to be healthy.  One suggestion would be to outlaw smoking, unhealthy foods, polluting vehicles and industries, but I am sure you would object to that also. At least most people who read this blog would.

could you imagine the cost of an oil change if auto insurance covered it? What is now twelve to thirty bucks would cost a few hundred

I’ve also purchased AAA insurance, in case I break down on the freeway or some other inconvenient place.  I don’t see the cost of towing going through the roof, or at least nobody seems to be complaining about it.

I hope I answered all your question.  It’s tough for me going back and forth trying to pick out all the salient points.

What is it with you socialists and forcing people to do what YOU think is right?

What is wrong with people paying for their healthcare?

2Hotel9, Ignoring the catastrophic scenario, I don’t have a problem with that.  I also don’t have a problem with the current system of private health care insurance, except that insurance isn’t mandatory.

My problems are a result of an overflow of illegal immigrants (which is discussion for another time) coupled with laws requiring hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

This distorts the problem, and results in some people (those who have insurance or sufficient means to pay for care) paying a disproportionate share of the costs.  Even when you pay for service, you pay more for that same care, because someone has to cover the costs of those who refuse to pay.

The system just isn’t fair.

Right now, if it weren’t for health insurance I could retire.  I could even continue to pay for my current health care plan.  The problem is trying to purchase insurance after my COBRA runs out.  The cost to me would be astronomical, even though I have always had insurance even before getting sick. 

So in case you were wondering, I do have an alterior motive, but regardless I still think the current system is unfair.

Marc, I have an ongoing illness that in not too many years will kill me, in nasty, excurciatingly painful way. Do you see or hear me crying for everyone else to pay for it? No, you don’t. Medical care is not a right.

I also don’t have a problem with the current system of private health care insurance

2Hotel9, I should clarify that statement. I do have a problem with the profit motive of the current system.  I believe it increases the cost of health care, and creates a tendency to deny care when it is needed.

I have an ongoing illness that in not too many years will kill me, in nasty, excurciatingly painful way

2Hotel9, it seems you have missed the entire thrust of my argument, or I have not been completely clear.  I can only assume you have insurance, as do I.  Have you ever heard me cry for everyone or anyone to pay for my illness? 

I am willing to purchase health insurance on my own, and I have for the past 32 years, or at least the companies that I have worked for have always covered me. 

I just don’t want to pay for the care of others who aren’t willing to pay for their own care.  The problem is, under the current system, and US law, that is exactly what you and I are doing. 

Are you happy with that?  I didn’t think you were, but........

IMO, a universal/single payer health care system, or a system of compulsory private insurance, are the best and only ways to make that happen, and alleviate the inequities in the current system.  If you can offer another alternative, I am all ears.

Oh yeah, I still don’t think a profit motive belongs in the health insurance industry. (Notice I didn’t say health care industry.)

No. I pay for what I get. And no, I will never have dealings with the VA, not fucking ever again. Medicare, Medicaid, Insurance are non options. Welfare, by any name, is a short term assistance, not a lifetime support. I have taken such actions as to ensure my wife and son will be financially independent of the state. That is all a man can do. I will expend the rest of my life, however short or long that may be, fighting the enemy of America, socialism. You appear to support socialism in the form of nationalized healthcare. You are wrong. Is that clear enough?

[...] I thought I knew the dimensions of the government health insurance argument. I didn%u2019t. Thanks to Marc for his submission. As a loyal reader and intermittent contributor to Say Anything I want to say sic em to anyone who is or wants to be a reader contributor. No matter what your view or political bent, I value it and based on the amount of discussion so do others. [...]

Marc said, I’ll ask again, what innovations has the health insurance given society to make our lives better?

Could you give us a list of requirements that you want so that we know where you stand? As far as I can see, it is not a health insurance providers job to “make our lives better”. It is simply their job to offer a service that we may or may not chose to employ.

That is the reason I have advocated for a single payer health care system where everyone has to pay. That is the only way insurance can really be effective and spread the risk evenly.

Would your “single payer health care” system go towards one insurance provider or would we be allowed to pick and chose among the providers?

You have to contribute to Medicare, but you don’t have to participate in it when you turn 65. That is a choice you have.

That’s a lot of parsing, but okay. I see where you’re coming from.

I’m not, I do have insurance, but what happens when you get sick, and you will eventually get sick, if you live long enough? Will you be able to take care of your own care?

Naw...I’ll hit you up! I already know you’ll support me.

Boy that’s an easy one. GM spends $1500 per vehicle to cover the health insurance costs for its employees. Toyota spends $200. Don’t you think that is a disadvantage?

And GM is going bankrupt because it wrote checks that it can’t cash. Do you have an example that doesn’t have an bunch of union controlled buffoons making decisions?

Why does there have to be a monetary incentive to stay healthy? I would think that everyone would want to be healthy.

I would think that people would want to be healthy as well, but all I have to do is look around at a nation filled with drug addicts and fat asses to realize that every incentive helps. Having a health savings account that gets used only when one is sick is an incentive to stay healthy. People will think twice about running to the emergency room to over-medicate on anti-biotics. They’ll save that money instead and stave off the drug resistant microbes that are developing at a fast pace in the US. They’ll save that money instead of running off to buy every TV commercial advertised antidepressant. (I think antidepressants have their place and some people truely need some of them, I just believe that they’re way overused. Just had to make that point clear lest I get confused for some Scientology nut.) Perhaps only then when there is real competition and price control, we’ll see market prices that resemble those of the largely free market lasik surgery. Ever check out those prices? It is a relatively new procedure and uses some pretty expensive technology. Notice one thing about those prices? They’re cheap as far as surgeries go! What is the difference? People pay for it themselves and price the market.

One suggestion would be to outlaw smoking, unhealthy foods, polluting vehicles and industries, but I am sure you would object to that also. At least most people who read this blog would.

Most people here, I included, advocate personal freedom in these issues. This includes our wallet.

There is such insurance.
I know BMW is offering free oil changes...

Alright. I should have said that if it was widely covered. (btw - insurance for just about anything can be bought)

My problems are a result of an overflow of illegal immigrants (which is discussion for another time) coupled with laws requiring hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

Big point there. A lot of hospitals in southern CA, NM, AZ, and TX are going broke and going out of business. I wonder how much the illegals are distorting the national picture.

The system just isn’t fair.

You keep on saying this and I can’t disagree. But how is this criticism a point for anything? Can you name one thing about life that is “fair”?

Right now, if it weren’t for health insurance I could retire. I could even continue to pay for my current health care plan. The problem is trying to purchase insurance after my COBRA runs out. The cost to me would be astronomical, even though I have always had insurance even before getting sick.

You’d still need to work under your system. It wouldn’t be fair for you to retire and force your burden upon us.

2Hotel9 said, And no, I will never have dealings with the VA, not fucking ever again.

Let me guess: it’s too single-payer socialist for you and you don’t like the long waits, subpar care, and dismissals? At least that is what I’ve heard in one form or another from many people who have had to deal with the VA.

much innovation comes out of for profit organizations.

Ooops! I meant not for profit business

Forgive me, I’ve just dropped in, and only read the last couple of posts, not the entirety of this (long and I’m sure interesting) thread, but I was wondering -

Do either of you consider there to be any real difference, at the level of freedom for the individual, between compulsory private health insurance, and a compulsory government health tax?

Marc said, I guess like did they discover new some new diagnostic equipment for more accurately diagnosing disease, other things along that line.

Hey, you’ve got something there. You could market that idea to insurance companies as a way to lower the cost of doing business. Accurately diagnosing diseases would go a long way towards forgoing a bunch of expensive and ultimately dead end tests, thereby saving them money.

Not sure how much of an ear you’d get, but you could try a chairman of the biggest insurance company in America - Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance. He donates millions to various Democrat/liberal/Marxist causes, so you two might be on the same page in this regard.

Good point, but I think there comes a time in life where one should be entitled retire. But I could at least quit my job and get a job at a golf course, if I wanted without the concern of how will I be able to purchase insurance.

But that, using your argument here, is not fair.

Ok likwidshoe, I was waiting for you to respond.  I’ll just respond to a couple of points since the Steeler and San Diego cames are on soon.

Could you give us a list of requirements that you want so that we know where you stand?

Someone stated in a previous post that not much innovation comes out of for profit organizations. I was responding to that commment, trying to learn what innovations have come out of health insurance providers, since them make some of the healthiest profits. 

And what do you mean requirements?  I guess like did they discover new some new diagnostic equipment for more accurately diagnosing disease, other things along that line.  If I had more time, I could come up with some examples.  Hopefully you get the point.

You’d still need to work under your system. It wouldn’t be fair for you to retire and force your burden upon us.

Good point, but I think there comes a time in life where one should be entitled retire.  But I could at least quit my job and get a job at a golf course, if I wanted without the concern of how will I be able to purchase insurance.

Gotta go - Thanks for your comments. I do appreciate the dialogue, even if I don’t always agree.

Hey, you’ve got something there. You could market that idea to insurance companies as a way to lower the cost of doing business.

My point to that was for profit businesses are entitled to, and need to make a profit in order to innovate, and improve our standar of living.  e.g. oil companies exploring for more oil, automobile manufacturers making safer cars.

If you don’t use profits for that type of innovation, why do you need a profit.  Remember I do differentiate between profit and compensation. 

Health insurance companies do not innovate or improve our standard of living, yet they make a profit.  And that profit is made even greater by denying insurance and care when needed.

But that, using your argument here, is not fair.

And to Mark

Do either of you consider there to be any real difference, at the level of freedom for the individual, between compulsory private health insurance, and a compulsory government health tax?

The difference between these items and most taxes, is it’s smart to have all three, health, auto and property insurance.  When they aren’t compulsory, those that do have it, are forced to pay a disproportionate share of the costs to cover those who don’t have it.  Property insurance not so much, but still it would be pretty irresponsible not to have coverage on you home or property.

What’s up? The Steeler game over enough for you come back and comment? They’re puttin’ a hurting on the defenseless Browns

If you had budgeted and saved for it, you would be able to retire without us having to pay for it. You would have funded your own entitlement. Is that fair enough for you?

Do you think that is a better alternative?  And then what do you do after that.  Praying you don’t get sick again within 7 years.

That’s why you buy insurance.  I have heard insurance described as a bet you make with the insurance company.  You’re betting you’re going to need it, and the insurance company is betting you don’t need it.  The ironic thing is, you hope the insurance company wins.

Marc: By your own admission, you have paid protection(insurance) for all those years, and still don’t have it.  If you had budgeted and saved for it, you would be able to retire without us having to pay for it.  You would have funded your own entitlement.  Is that fair enough for you?  Oh, but wait! You couldn’t save enough because you had to pay taxes to fund the entitlements of others.  That money was confiscated from your earnings over all those years.  Fair?  One problem creates the other.  Collectivism just doesn’t work.  It doesn’t create the prosperity it takes to pay for everything it wants to be true.  Future generations pay through high taxes.  It’s time for fiscal responsibility.

Mark asked, Do either of you consider there to be any real difference, at the level of freedom for the individual, between compulsory private health insurance, and a compulsory government health tax?

Not sure. I have a natural aversion to the government collecting it, but not sure if that scenerio equals less freedom.

Marc said, Well, likwidshoe, you’re the one that implied that not everything in life is fair.

Well I would accept that it isn’t fair and do my best to not use it as a point in a discussion (because what is “fair” is a value judgement and one that is probably not going to be agreed upon in a disagreement). If your previous comments are any indication to me, you wouldn’t consider it to be “fair”, hence why I brought it up.

What’s up? The Steeler game over enough for you come back and comment? They’re puttin’ a hurting on the defenseless Browns.

Marc: Got to get to the Raider game, but one thought.  Like collectivists do, you have taken the worst case scenario and have made it the standard, thus justifying your collectivist scheme.  Not fair.  You have to budget for your life, and then buy insurance for what you can’t anticipate.  The rest of us shouldn’t have to pay, through taxes and inflated prices, for what you don’t provide for in a responsible manner.

Got to get to the Raider game

The Raiders????  All my friends that (previously) liked the Raiders have given up on them this year.  I’ve converted them to Steeler fans.

Everyone have a Happy Holidays and New Years!  It may be time to put this thread to rest.

Well all I really know about all this is:

I worked for 30 years and paid for health insurance I rarely used.  Now I’ve been off work for 2 months and no matter what some of the comments suggest, there are no really affordable alternatives to employer supported plans.  COBRA is a farce.  The VA is now for paupers or veterans with some socially accepted, politically correct ailments only.  Being 57 and unemployed would give some of these posters a new outlook on this I bet.

When a 500mg Tylenol costs 12.50 and a paper strainer to pee through in case you pass a kidney stone costs 13.00, someone as cheap as myself might conclude that someone somewhere is making one hell of a profit off people who
do have insurance or money in the bank.

I really don’t know what the answer is or if there is one but there are some of us who are not capable of shelling out 30 to 200 thousand dollars for one hospital stay and the only way we can get any assistance is to sign away everything we own.  And this is not a good thing for the worlds most prosperous nation.

Joe, where were you 2 days ago when the discussion was a lot more intense?  I could have used your help.

I sympathize.  I could go hash over everything that I have said in previous posts, but I really don’t think that is necessary. 

Maybe your message will be a wake up call, for some, to the problems many are experiencing in this contry in getting and keeping affordable health insurance. 

Best wishes, for the New Year!

A more detailed explanation of the above is coming tomorrow.  Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Marc and Joe: Healthcare is not affordable because of not enough govt, it’s because of too much govt.

[...] Swiss government turns down national health scheme By Marc on December 23, 2005 at 4:44 pm [...]

2H9 and Rob were saying no insurance for anybody

Actually, that wasn’t what I was saying at all.  I support a hybrid of the two systems.  Pay as you go for routine medical care (checkups, colds, etc.) and catastrophic insurance for broken legs, major illnesses.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Joe,

I worked for 30 years and paid for health insurance I rarely used. Now I’ve been off work for 2 months and no matter what some of the comments suggest, there are no really affordable alternatives to employer supported plans.

You could consider paying the fees yourself.  Had you been putting away some cash for the inevitable “rainy day” you’d have the cash to cover the expense.  With employer “supplied” insurance, the ENTIRE cost of that insurance is paid for by YOU.  Whether you realize it or not, the employee pays.  The company just considers the whole cost of your benefits as your compensation for the work you do.  The larger the company, the better the rates, but individuals can spend almost as much on private plans… It just seems like less. 

Had you been putting the money that the company and you paid for insurance toward an investment and some catastrophe coverage, you’d be better off today.  Rather than whine about it, tell everyone you know to begin setting some money aside for later.  Show them the error you made and how not to make it in the future… and if you’re good at it, you can make money at it and pay your medical bills.

COBRA is a farce. The VA is now for paupers or veterans with some socially accepted, politically correct ailments only. Being 57 and unemployed would give some of these posters a new outlook on this I bet.

Probably not.  Unless I was the type of person who blamed everyone else for my stupidity.

When a 500mg Tylenol costs 12.50 and a paper strainer to pee through in case you pass a kidney stone costs 13.00, someone as cheap as myself might conclude that someone somewhere is making one hell of a profit off people who do have insurance or money in the bank.

Where does Tylenol cost $12.50?  In the emergency room… sure… supply and demand.  Get them from Costco or Sams… $12.50 will buy you two bottles of 1000 500Mg Tylenol.  As for the strainer… that sucks.  But you could use your average colander.  $5.00 from Target or Wal-mart.  Some of them have Very tight mesh and if you need thinner mesh, coffee filters would work.

I really don’t know what the answer is or if there is one but there are some of us who are not capable of shelling out 30 to 200 thousand dollars for one hospital stay and the only way we can get any assistance is to sign away everything we own. And this is not a good thing for the worlds most prosperous nation.

You’re 100% correct.  So why did you choose to spend your cash in your youth?

In case you think that you have to be born rich to have money… Most millionaires earned between $90,000 and $200,000 / year.  They scrimped and saved and tirelessly toiled to save for their retirement.  They made good decisions and became millionaires.  Bad decision making results in being old and unable to pay for your medical needs.  As more people do as you have done, the country feels the pain of trying to care for you.  As the pain increases, the care you receive reduces. 

Best of luck to you!

It’s a few days late, but here it is.  At the root of the healthcare problem is the govt.  After WW2, the economy was expanding, and labor was in great demand.  To attract workers, companies started offering healthcare to employees.  The govt assisted in this by allowing healthcare to be paid for by pretax dollars, both for employers and employees. This had two effects:  Free enterprise healthcare was severely damaged, and insurance companies became middlemen for the govt.  Individuals who didn’t have employer-supplied healthcare had to pay for it with aftertax dollars, which raises the cost.  As a result of separating the consumer of the service from the payer, prices no longer served their rationing function.  Instead, the govt, which benefits from rising costs, ruled the roost.  With no rationing, the demand went out of sight, the supply stayed relatively constant, and so prices skyrocket.  If we returned healthcare to being paid for by everyone with aftertax dollars, insurance would go back to being a market item, catastrophic would be the major form, and the market would supply affordable healthcare for almost all of us, IMO.
Until we level the playing field and get govt out of the picture, things will continue to go as they are now.  We already see the effects:  Not much full coverage, co-pays that go up every year, and the beginnings of supply problems.  Socialism does it every time.

Quite some way back, Marc said:

And what sort of innovations has the health insurance industry made with all their profits? ($4 billion this year by United Health Group) Improved methods of handling health insurance claims. I would hardly consider that an innovation. An innovation would be anything that improves the health of individuals, i.e. pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, types of treatments.

How many health insurance companies even have R&D departments to make these innovations?

Most insurance companies sponsor awareness campaigns, they fund research groups, they sponsor blood drives and screening busses, etc… The money they hold is an engine for countless small businesses.  I’m not a major fan of insurance companies, though… I can see their benefits.

We’re not talking gasoline here. I understand the free market, and I have no objection to oil companies making a profit, how else will they find new sources of oil and natural gas to fuel our cars and heat our homes.

Yet you act like the medical industry should do nothing to do the same.  They charge higher and higher rates to feed their insurance (you know for all of the lawsuits), and the increasing costs of EVERYTHING.  And, Just like oil companies, the public demands more and better of the health industry.  Medical scanning has evolved by leaps and bounds over the last decade.  We have technology that can read brain current brain activity… but it’s really expensive to develop, produce, maintain, and use.  It costs.  But they tend not to use this advanced stuff when your homeless and have no way of paying for it.  You get the lower rung of care. 

And neither do I object to other companies that provide services and products we need to improve our living conditions.

But do you object to paying more for a product so the company can do additional R&D?  You do when it comes to the health industry, eh?

The problem is nobody has to buy insurance, yet health care providers have to treat you. That is the law! I don’t think it is fair either, but that is the law!

I’m so sick of this argument.  Yeah and the law sucks, so lets debate changing the law that requires hospitals to treat everyone.  I’d rather debate that than discuss bad solutions to the problem.

So in the end those that buy the insurance are paying a disproportionate share of the burden to cover those who refuse to purchase the insurance. Do you think that is fair?

What’s fair, exactly?  I have two kids that I home school.  We pay for books, tools, trips, breakfasts, lunches, etc… yet I still pay taxes to support a school system that I don’t use.  They provide meals, supplies, etc to those who’s parents can not afford it.  Why can’t the parents afford it?  In most cases it’s because the parent has priorities that do not include providing, properly, for their child’s education.

That is the reason I have advocated for a single payer health care system where everyone has to pay. That is the only way insurance can really be effective and spread the risk evenly.

You still presume that the only way to pay for medical care is through insurance.  One payer systems cost more, by the way, than competition would.

As Likwid stated, if you fail to pay, they go after you until you do.  Your credit report shows the owed money indefinitely.

Remember, unlike car insurance, where you can elect to never drive or own a car, and not buy auto insurance, everyone does or will get sick eventually. So for insurance to work properly everyone should be required to purchase insurance, so that costs can be spread equally among those that are currently or will be using it in the future.

BTW, does anyone have a problem with the requirement to purchase auto insurance if you own a car, or posting of a bond to cover any damage which may result from someone causing an accident or damage to someone else’s property?

I have a problem with the levels of mandated insurance. In the state of NH, you can opt not to have insurance, but the state requests that you be able to pay what the minimum insurance covers out of pocket.  After your first accident, you are required to have insurance.  I don’t like forced insurance, but too many people would opt not to have any that we need to have some provision.  (which is your point about medical, I understand)… but the rules there should change and people should be more responsible.

For the record, I will not allow my daughter or son to drive my vehicles until they are 18 and have purchased their own insurance.  I sound horrible, don’t I?  How many of you would like me to be your dad? 

I will not place my kids in a situation that they are not able to handle.  It’s the right thing to do and neither of my kids will end up like Joe.

Pay as you go for routine medical care (checkups, colds, etc.) and catastrophic insurance for broken legs, major illnesses.

And I would likely agree with something along those lines, as long as the insurance part was compulsory, sim