Comments on: Health Insurance Can’t Be Optional

By: DHL

DHL — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:10:14 +0000

Massachusetts initiated a new universal health insurance system using a combination of incentives and penalties to get citizens to sign on. Massachusetts residents who are uninsured as of December 31, 2007 will lose their personal exemption – worth $219, when they file taxes in the spring. If they continue to lack health insurance into 2008, they will be taxed 50% of the price of the least expensive health insurance plan available. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal in February 7, 2008, only half of the previously uninsured currently enrolled; and no less than 20% did not qualify for subsidies and were granted exemptions because the costs were too much of a hardship (note the per capital money income of Massachusetts is reported as $25,952 for 2006). One lesson we could learn from here is that, in spite of government intervention, the cost of health care coverage in the U.S. could still be unaffordable. In the real world, it is difficult for us to acquire something that is not affordable. On the other hand, I would agree that health care coverage cannot be universal without a mandate, which may result in garnishing someone’s wage for failing to obtain health insurance coverage. Using the liability auto insurance as a parallel to present the logic of a mandatory health care insurance coverage for every U.S. citizen may not gain broad support because U.S. citizens have a choice of not owing an automobile.

The issue of affordability arises from the fact that everything has a price. Massachusetts’ mandatory health care insurance is costing the government about $158 million today, and is projected to reach $1.35 billion by 2011. On the other hand, Massachusetts is expected to incur a $1.2 billion budget deficit in 2008. To balance the budget in 2011, some other areas of government services, e.g. education may have to face deep cuts, or the tax needs to be raised. The current economic slow down will not help increase government revenue without new taxes. I believe health care reform in the U.S. will take a gradual approach, and it is going to be built upon the system we already have. In a few year’s time, we will learn from the Massachusetts experience, what are the facts and myths of a universal health care system – its promises, the cost of delivering the promises, and the effect on people providing the health care services.

By: Colorado Health Insurance Insider » Thanksgiving Cavalcade of Risk

Colorado Health Insurance Insider » Thanksgiving Cavalcade of Risk — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:18:52 +0000

[...] Let’s keep in mind the nature of most people when it comes to taking care of not-so-pleasant tasks – procrastination is pretty common. All of us in the health insurance industry are used to getting calls on the 28th of the month, from a client who desperately needs a policy in effect by the first of the next month. I would imagine that in the next seven weeks, quite a few of those 100,000 people will get insurance. And if they don’t, they’ll be paying higher taxes in 2008. [...]

By: Louise

Louise — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:10:19 +0000

ForHealth, I think you missed the whole point of my article. It’s true that the government shouldn’t be enacting rules that force us to do things that are strictly for our own good. But if you are uninsured, and collapse in the middle of a park while having a heart attack, people are going to call 911. Paramedics are going to take you to an emergency room, and doctors are going to try to save your life. In a situation like that, you might not even be conscious during the treatment. They aren’t going to be asking you for proof of insurance. And if you declare bankruptcy afterwards, the hospital has to write off the debt. Then they raise the prices they charge, and those of us who do have insurance end up paying more. So having health insurance doesn’t just help the insured. And not having it doesn’t just hurt the person who chooses to go without. It’s a financial drain on everyone else who does pay for health insurance.

By: dixon

dixon — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:31:09 +0000

Do you also disagree with the law requiring you to carry liability coverage on your auto insurance? Don’t say that is a different subject either.

So you don’t have health insurance. Your grand plan is to just put the money into a savings account and expect that to be enough? If you had something happen tomorrow and needed a $400,000 brain surgery, would you expect the hospital not to treat you if they didn’t think you’d be able to pay? That is the freedom that should be afforded a hospital doing business in a free country. The fact is that nearly all people without health insurance that get a large hospital bill declare bankruptcy and skip out on the bill. They all had the same grand plan that you do.

I’m sure you’ll have no problem thinking of yourself when it does happen to you. You’ll have no problem passing the bill onto the more responsible people in society to pay because you’ve got an excuse. All the leeches in this country have an excuse why they need to be a leech.

By: forHealth

forHealth — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:03:28 +0000

So much for living in the land of the free. Freedom comes with a certain responsibility for choices whether they are poor or not. It is not the state’s responsibility to intervene for an individual’s own good. That is essentially like living in a Communist state. So a person doesn’t have insurance – that doesn’t mean they necessarily forgo medical care until dire circumstances dictate it. That is a myth that is constantly being perpetuated by the left.

Health insurance does NOT guarantee better health care. All it does is enrich the the coffers of stockholders. Most of these “affordable” plans don’t provide any better coverage than having no insurance in the first place.