Required Health Insurance? | INFJ Forum

Required Health Insurance?

IndigoSensor

IndigoSensor

Product Obtained
Retired Staff
Nov 12, 2008
14,153
1,334
0
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
1w2 sx/so/sp
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/20/obama.health.care/index.html

Despite the title about the concern being if this is a tax hike or not, that is not what I am mad about. Apparently, the current health insurance plan now wants everyone to be required to have health insurance. Personally, I have a major problem with this. No one, should be ever required to have some kind of insurance they don't want to have. This is a violation of personal rights in my opinion, and the government is trying to play nanny. Both of which I have a major problem with. Obama has compared this to required auto insurance. Personally, I also have a problem with the way auto-insurance is set up. It has seemed so illogical to me ever since I was a little kid. If there was fear that obama was a socialist (something I don't overtly have a problem with really), this will just solidify this notion.

In truth, I am not going to debate this much further, as it will go no where with what I would have to say. I might add a comment here or there, but that's it. I realise that this topic has been touchy in the past, but I feel this warrents a new disccsion. Keep it civil people. Discuss.
 
So if someone doesn't have health insurance, and they get sick, does that mean because of their failure to be individually responsible we don't have to provide them health services and we can just let them die? Would it not be a violation of personal rights to make parents buy health insurance for their children?

On that token, if we are going to get rid of required auto insurance, are you going to be the person who pays when someone who was individually irresponsible and didn't get auto insurance, gets in a crash? Are you going to pay for the cost of repairs and any injuries that were caused to any party involved? I'm not going to do it, so I'm assuming you are volunteering.

And if you don't require coverage, what alternative means do you suggest for achieving universal coverage? I'm assuming since you don't like the idea, that you have alternative ideas. And if we do get a universal system, how are you going to keep free riders from tagging on without an insurance requirement?

The average annual increase in insurance premiums to pay for the health care of the uninsured in 2005 was $922 for those with family coverage and $341 for those with individual coverage. Perhaps making health insurance more like auto insurance seems like "socialism" and a "violation of personal rights" to you, but once health care becomes a luxury in this country, where will you stand?

The problem with ideology is it doesn't provide practical answers. Your fears of "socialism" and "personal rights violations" do not provide affordable health care for everyone.

It is convenient you have chosen not to debate a topic for which I doubt you have any answers. I'm not afraid to yield a little personal freedom to have a system that works. Perhaps a question you should ask yourself is why you are? The term "nanny state" seems to suggest a fear of having the state involved in health care. Where does that fear come from and what is it based on? Very few people have the guts to answer those kind of questions about themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
After we get health care out of the way we can work on getting people to college for free. I am hoping that by doing that everyone will become educated and eliminate poverty with the wealth of knowledge you will gain there. And by doing so we may even build tolerance and understanding. It will take time but eventually we will get there. Change. I can't wait for it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
Required?? Ya ok how about the people that can't even afford to eat, pay bills,afford housing?? They don't give a rats ass about the people living in poverty here,they help feed people in other countries,but not our own! *spits on the government*
 
I think it can depend on how much the "required health care" is. For example, if you don't own a car, you're not required to pay car insurance. I still prefer the idea of a government sponsored health care program, because it's there if you need it. Considering the number of jobless people we have, if they're forced to pay one more bill for health care it's going to be frustrating.

I'm glad I have a full time job, because my job pays for my healthcare. Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay any additional health care.

If every job in the nation provided some kind of health care to their workers (by deducting it from their paychecks) I think this would work. For self-employed people they should also have the government put in partial payments, and the self-employed worker should match half, depending on what they made each month.

If you're unemployed, you should get additional health care benefits in the same way you with collecting unemployment.

'Course, this would mean our taxes would go up.

Unless the government was smart enough to put a five cent tax per item on all vending machine junk foods...AHEM.
 
I would raise the same concerns as Satya, but it's worth noting that most people would have a certain price range beyond which they would prefer taking the risk of being left for dead to paying for the insurance. Insurance, being based on percent chances, has a finite value.
 
To make employers provide healthcare for employees......

To watch big business put family-owned businesses out of business while underselling them with imported products actually start installing.......then forcing their new installers to provide their own liability and workmens' compensation insurance, use their own vehicles, hire their own helpers(who will provide health insurance for whom then)....

More and more contractors are hiring subcontractors to get around other programs to help the employees; is the government going to provide healthcare for all those without it? At what cost today, not yesterday? Tomorrow? Next year?

There are a lot of local and other government employees that have had their insurance paid for already by the government through taxes if we would just look and see it for a moment. Many of those people do not produce, are along for the ride to retirement and benefits we are already paying for. Why not replace those that are doing nothing on gov payrolls with some that are out of work that will actually do something to help enable actually paying for what they get? Swap out some out of work with some that are not working but have jobs?

Average cost of a husband and wife yearly health insurance alone would stagger most people. Premiums go up every year about 15% on average or you make more concessions by taking a larger deductible. The older we get, the higher the deductibles we take on to afford our insurance. Before we reach age 65, we will be paying most of it anyway our own selves through higher and higher deductibles. I am saying health insurance is one thing, but living with it and paying for it is a whole other ball of wax.

Like it or not, some people become high risks for insurance companies. Make it illegal to cancel their coverage or raise their rates and the insurance companies will be out of business or standing in line for gov money to keep them afloat. Will the gov become the new insurance company that keeps insuring the uninsurable? Then they will be doomed with the costs of high risks along with everyone else. I look for the word "reasonable" somewhere and do not find it. It would be reasonable for everyone to afford being buried with life insurance. That, alone and by itself, is quite a task. Five grand life insurance for everyone to pay for burial sounds great. Do they own a lot to be buried in? Another problem arises.

My reason for all this is to ask people to look reasonably at what is being proposed and what the reasonable costs will be. Doctors spend small fortunes and borrow small fortunes to go into business after years of learning at our finest institutions. To set up and staff a facility is expensive and their costs must be returned to them from their patients. They know this when they go to school and open a practice. They know they need malpractice insurance to protect them from the attorneys that are out for big bucks, though many times their goals are warranted. The costs of medicines, research and development, care for the elderly, care for the criminals in jails....healthcare IS expensive. To say the funds for healthcare for everyone will come from other government programs and will not add to the deficit is somewhat of a bold statement. Maybe some of it will come from Social Security like they have done in the past. Maybe military spending. Maybe cut everything, but remember those things you cut are already mostly in the red.

Look around and see lazy people gorging themselves with junk food and no exercise, but there are also those that exercise and eat wisely. Why treat them the same? Disease treats them the same. To the lazy that gets cancer, so to the jogger that gets cancer. Believe me, I would that all men could have the same healthcare. However, a reasonable solution is what I would like to see. Show me a reasonable solution so I may feel secure with it.

It takes a brave person to open himself up to criticism and conflict, but a wise person to fix a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
just me said:
Look around and see lazy people gorging themselves with junk food and no exercise, but there are also those that exercise and eat wisely. Why treat them the same? Disease treats them the same. To the lazy that gets cancer, so to the jogger that gets cancer. Believe me, I would that all men could have the same healthcare. However, a reasonable solution is what I would like to see. Show me a reasonable solution so I may feel secure with it.

It takes a brave person to open himself up to criticism and conflict, but a wise person to fix a problem.
Click to expand...

But we don't *need* junk food, we want it. And seriously? I've seen the vending machine prices skyrocket but no one bats an eye because they're addicted to the candy. We tax cigarettes and alcohol...what, really, is the difference between those things and candy? At least wine in limited amounts is purportedly good for your heart, but it's still taxed.

All I'm saying is, there are options if we're willing to use/see them. No, it might not be the *best* solution (there is no such thing) but maybe we should look at making healthier foods better and cheaper (or give more tax cuts to organic farmers and co-ops so they can lower prices on healthier foods), and raising the taxes on the foods that typically lessen our quality of life. That's my take, though.
 
VChosenOne said:
Required?? Ya ok how about the people that can't even afford to eat, pay bills,afford housing?? They don't give a rats ass about the people living in poverty here,they help feed people in other countries,but not our own! *spits on the government*
Click to expand...

It is required for people who can afford it. Those who cannot would have their insurance paid for by the government.
 
There is a set rate per gallon of gas used on the Highway Fund and last year it went into the red big time when everyone cut usage because of the high costs per gallon, the buying of cars that use less gas, etcetera. The missing funds budgeted were taken from the general fund and now they discuss whether to pay the general fund back or not. The tax rate per gallon of gas obviously needs to be raised, and yes the funds should be repaid to the general fund. The funds should have been returned to the Social Security budget, too. I see all the funds that cannot support themselves already and it makes me wonder what will become of our gov if they start paying for healthcare. They can't even handle the highway funds.

I am certain running a gov is not extremely easy and am not running our gov down; merely pointing out much more solveable problems that are not solved.
Healthcare is a forest of problems compared to the others' being like a tree.

Medicaid or Medicare pays for certain commodities already, and a lot of times pay the businesses more than what the public would have had to pay. The businesses certainly do not return the extra monies, but they should.

One of the biggest benefits of healthcare insurance is what they allow hospitals and doctors and the likes to charge. They will only allow a specific amount to be charged their customers or insureds. That, to me, would be a place to start with healthcare reform. Fix that on paper then take the next step. Let that maybe be their homework to make this one old person happy and gain his trust a bit. Show me how you plan to fix that one thing first. Sorry for the rambling...
 
The USA should adopt a system like in Australia -

(A) Those that can afford it get a levy (extra tax) if they don't have health insurance.

(B) Health insurance should be a personal choice - employers should not choose the provider. In the transitionary period, former employees should continue on with their prior insurer even if they change jobs - unless they choose a new provider.

(C) The legal loopholes that the insurance industry uses to get out of covering legitimate claims needs to end. Dropping cover due to prior conditions because the insurer failed to do their homework is simply unacceptable. The amount of people who have had to declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses who DID HAVE INSURANCE is simply unacceptable.

(D) Those who are on very low incomes due to various reasons are eligible for a Health Care card which provides public treatment if required. http://www.facs.gov.au/about/benefits/concessions/Pages/HealthCareCard.aspx

On the whole this system works well most treatments are available and the services are often provided a lot cheaper than the USA. But not everything is available compared to the USA which benefits from scale. At least for those who can pay for it.

The system detailed above will be a lot cheaper than the current proposed system, though certain shareholders will not be happy.

Also remember that the USA already has higher per capita subsidies for the health care industry than most western countries - what return are you getting from this? A rent-seeking insurance and pharmaceutical industry? Subsidising drug development for the rest of the world?
 
Last edited:
I think we should reevaluate the system before we require this-and-that and have the government pay for this-and-that. If we're going to create a healthcare system, we should look at what we currently have in motion and either alter that or do away with it completely and start from scratch.

The government is too ambitious for my tastes. People forget -- if the government is going to pay for health insurance in low-income families, it first has to have money. Where is the government going to get that? Especially when it's going to be a struggle in the future just to pay for social security, medicare, and all the other such pre-existing programs. I can tell you what, though -- the American people will not be happy with the taxes they're going to have to pay in the future.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
I think we should reevaluate the system before we require this-and-that and have the government pay for this-and-that. If we're going to create a healthcare system, we should look at what we currently have in motion and either alter that or do away with it completely and start from scratch.

The government is too ambitious for my tastes. People forget -- if the government is going to pay for health insurance in low-income families, it first has to have money. Where is the government going to get that? Especially when it's going to be a struggle in the future just to pay for social security, medicare, and all the other such pre-existing programs. I can tell you what, though -- the American people will not be happy with the taxes they're going to have to pay in the future.
Click to expand...

There is one other question you might want to consider. Why does health care cost so much in the first place? We are paying 3 to 5 times as much for our health care in this country as other countries are paying for similar quality health care.

The reasons heatlh care costs so much is a lack competition in the marketplace between insurance companies, frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and the overuse of services. If the government isn't going to provide solutions to these problems, then who is?

In addition to that, while it might be nice to just argue about starting over, millions of people are already dependent on Medicare and Medicaid. It would be utterly impossible and impractical to throw out those systems as nobody would stand for it. As such, we are limied to amending the current system.

And why are you complaining about taxes? There are two types of taxes, the ones that people think they are paying and the ones that people are truly paying. Health care is virtually a necessity. At some point in time, everyone is going to get sick. To make a profit, insurance companies have to spread out the cost of paying for health care services or deny them entirely. When they do the former, you are paying part of the cost of all the health services they paid out for via higher rates. As such, a growing percentage of your income is going to pay for increasing insurance rates, which in turn are going to pay for other people's health service costs. The only difference is that instead of a tax coming from the bureaucracy you know as the government, it is coming from the bureaucracies of the insurance companies.
 
Last edited:
I think the government needs to cut back on spending from certain programs (ex. F-22 raptor, v-22 osprey, and others). I also think that it is not the government's place to make requirements for citizens for certain issues (such as auto insurance or healthcare). I also think that if the government was less burecratic and more efficient that things would run more smoothly. As it is, I think the best thing that could happen would be for a team of accountants to look over the government's books and try to return them to financial stability. Another tax hike (on a select population) will not address the underlying issues that would still be present in the system. If there is to be a tax hike, everyone should have the same additional tax added.
 
LOL "required" try to make me.

I want Obama to keep pushing this shit, god I hope he does, every time he gets on camera and talks about his plans for America his approval ratings drop in leaps and bounds. Another liberal 1 term-er.
 
He is scaring die-hard liberals away even (me being one of them).
 
I don't get it, whats bad about health insurance?
I think its more about how they are going to pay for it.
 
Satya said:
The reasons heatlh care costs so much is a lack competition in the marketplace between insurance companies, frivolous malpractice lawsuits, and the overuse of services. If the government isn't going to provide solutions to these problems, then who is?
Click to expand...
Would you care to elaborate on that "overuse," and how the government's involvement would stifle it?
 
I think required auto insurance and health insurance are two very different things. Auto insurance protects individuals in time of accident, and by individuals I mean people who weren't driving the automobile. In driving a car no matter how safe a driver you are, you are always endangering the well being of others. Personal health is a little less clear cut in my opinion in that, you aren't necessarily endangering other people. People aren't required to check themselves into hospitals even if they have the plague, it's a personal choice, so why should people be forced to have health insurance? Personally I think parents should be required to provide health insurance for their children up to a certain point in time (and I don't know exactly when that point in time would be, I'm just saying my view) but the parents should not be forced to have health insurance for their own health. We don't force people to seek medical attention (usually) so how can we force them to have health insurance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back