Insurance mandate: Should healthy people pay for irresponsible sick people?

[samsara15]

I'll take a crooked, corrupt Democrat / Liberal over a crooked, corrupt Republican / Conservative any day of the week. You choose your poison, I'll choose mine.

 

[Webrockk]

I suppose you would. Crooked, corrupt democrats are in the business of taking from me to give to you.

 

[samsara15]

I suppose you would. Crooked, corrupt democrats are in the business of taking from me to give to you.

Crooked, corrupt liberal Democrats serve the public interest better than their equally corrupt and crooked conservative Republican competitors. You call it what you will, what you mean is quite clear.

 

[Hobo1]

Many Democrats are arguing that an insurance mandate is necessary so that everyone will be forced to get health insurance. This is for the sake of cost sharing; nowadays, for instance, many consumers are looking to tighten their belts and find savings everywhere they can....
What do you think?

Just so my remarks are not misinterpreted, I strongly oppose Obama-care for many reasons.

However, if I were to sit down and write a bill that I could support, it would include some form of insurance mandate. I say "some form", because there are many options where an individual could purchase health care insurance at a very low rate.

One existing way is the Health Savings Account (HSA), which allows an individual to put money, tax free, into a medical savings account. If an individual were to put $5,000 into a HSA, then insurance called major medical can be purchased for less than $50 per month. Major medical insurance is full medical coverage with a $5000 deductible.

Even Obama-care allows the premium to be adjusted depending on some factors... here is the exact wording:

"(a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium
18 rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insur-
19 ance coverage offered in the individual or group market—
20 "(1) such rate shall vary only by—
21 "(A) family structure;
22 "(B) community rating area;
23 "(C) the actuarial value of the benefit;
24 "(D) age, except, that such rate shall not
25 vary by more than [2 to 1]..

Even under a government run plan, the health insurance premium does not need to be the same for all people. If I had my way, I would include in this list preferential rates to people who lead a healthy lifestyle.

In this way, a responsible individual who a) leads a healthy lifestyle and b) has a health savings account, could obtain very inexpensive health insurance.

With regard to ANY insurance mandate, I believe everyone has a responsibility to keep a minimum level of health insurance. Although the chances are low, even young and healthy people COULD become a burden on society if they had a traumatic accident and became paralyzed for life. Part of your responsibility of being a citizen is to have health insurance in the off-chance you do get sick with a serious illness or injury.

So I can see the logic of having an insurance mandate, providing insurance rates are adjusted so to match the risk factor of the individual who is required to buy insurance.

 

[RationalAltruism]

Just so my remarks are not misinterpreted, I strongly oppose Obama-care for many reasons.

However, if I were to sit down and write a bill that I could support, it would include some form of insurance mandate. I say "some form", because there are many options where an individual could purchase health care insurance at a very low rate.

One existing way is the Health Savings Account (HSA), which allows an individual to put money, tax free, into a medical savings account. If an individual were to put $5,000 into a HSA, then insurance called major medical can be purchased for less than $50 per month. Major medical insurance is full medical coverage with a $5000 deductible.

Even Obama-care allows the premium to be adjusted depending on some factors... ...

Even under a government run plan, the health insurance premium does not need to be the same for all people. If I had my way, I would include in this list preferential rates to people who lead a healthy lifestyle.

In this way, a responsible individual who a) leads a healthy lifestyle and b) has a health savings account, could obtain very inexpensive health insurance.

The problem is that for some people, even "very inexpensive health insurance" is too much for some people. For instance, if you're a single mother working minimum wage, or unemployed, even $5000 for a HSA would likely be extremely hard to come by, and could be put to better use elsewhere, like paying for the mortgage, or buying food. Especially if the subject in question is pretty healthy, it could easily be in their best interest not to get health insurance, given a budget constraint.

It's not that I don't think everyone should ideally have insurance; it's that some people simply cannot afford it. Were this to be remedied (for instance, were insurance costs to be fully subsidized, or sufficiently subsidized), then a mandate would make a little more sense, because it wouldn't be detracting from the other parts of someone's budget. But without subsidies, it has the potential to be a much greater drain than a benefit on the very poor who happen to be healthy.

 

[OldTrapper]

I suppose you would. Crooked, corrupt democrats are in the business of taking from me to give to you.

All one has to do is look at the national debt their programs have given us; the transfer of wealth to the rich; the dependency of the people on those same programs; the waste, and fraud, inbred in those programs; the unConstitutional growth, and power, of the fed; etc.

Of course, to them the "ends justifies the means" as long as other pay for it.

BTW, it's not just the Democrats, it is the RINO's like Bush who are no more then progressives even if they are Republicans.

 

[samsara15]

All one has to do is look at the national debt their programs have given us; the transfer of wealth to the rich; the dependency of the people on those same programs; the waste, and fraud, inbred in those programs; the unConstitutional growth, and power, of the fed; etc.

Of course, to them the "ends justifies the means" as long as other pay for it.

BTW, it's not just the Democrats, it is the RINO's like Bush who are no more then progressives even if they are Republicans.

By your terms, most Americans are RINOs or worse. I suggest you represent either a very small minority of the American public, or a radical, small group totally unable to sell their program to the public. I also suggest your moralistic portrayal of you and your cause fall on either hostile or deaf ears. You have been preaching this BS since the early days of Roosevelt. Does the term dinosaur come to mind?

 

[OldTrapper]

By your terms, most Americans are RINOs or worse. I suggest you represent either a very small minority of the American public, or a radical, small group totally unable to sell their program to the public. I also suggest your moralistic portrayal of you and your cause fall on either hostile or deaf ears. You have been preaching this BS since the early days of Roosevelt. Does the term dinosaur come to mind?

Sometimes the "dinosaur" has more sense then the little parasite. However, since the parasite just continues to suck the blood out of the dinosaur he eventually dies. This is what the progressive is, a parasite. And, it will destroy the country.

During the Revolution 80% of the people wanted to remain subjects to King George, and refused to fight in the war. George Washington lost every battle he had till he crossed the Delaware. Eventually he won. It was then that the 80% of fools, and cowards, accepted the plan of the Colonial Army, and then took the benefits offered even though they had earned none of them.

That is what you are like. You live in a country that you had no part in creating, nor do you support. Yet you are more then willing to live off what others have created, fought for, and died for.

You are a parasite as much as every progressive is.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How 'bout WHACKING Medicare D....THE biggest drain ON Medicare??!!!​

And sheep like you want more inept government making decisions for them?

Noooooooooooo......let's leave America's health-care in the hands o' those fine-folks at Corporate America (who can't manage much of anything, without tax-subsidies/welfare); your preference, obviously.

If you prefer being ripped-off by the corporate-boys, stay with your present-plan....until their federal-subsidies expire....and, they go-outta-business.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And sheep like you want more inept government making decisions for them?

Baffling...and speaks purely to 'means to an end' agenda.

and you consider yourself to be as pure as fresh fallen snow? What self-serving nonsense. LOL.

.....Not-to-mention, an "argument" full-o'-nothing.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

and you consider yourself to be as pure as fresh fallen snow? What self-serving nonsense. LOL.

Far from pure...just blessed with a modicum of common sense...

....And, giving federal-subsidies to a for-profit-company (to help keep their head above-water), makes sense, to you, huh??

It's soundin' like Daddy Bush needs to buy you a new MBA, as well....much like his Idiot Son.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What we need is protection from the wolves / thieves such as yourself.

Just who was it that established that system of thievery?

'Tis true!!!

It was more a matter o' sheer-stupidity.....

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From the same government? That's rich. Oh, you must be one of those that actually believes the current crop of corrupt, self serving Democrats are somehow different than Republicans.

....Yet, you're supporting the health-care industry BUSHCO LEFT us.

What is IN that Koolaid?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just so my remarks are not misinterpreted, I strongly oppose Obama-care for many reasons.

....Even though there IS no such thing as "Obama-care".

That makes sense.....

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's not that I don't think everyone should ideally have insurance; it's that some people simply cannot afford it.

....And, we're obviously more-stupid than the rest-o'-the-World.