Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should Health Insurance be Mandatory?
Yes 22 37.29%
No 37 62.71%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2010, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,440,437 times
Reputation: 1208

Advertisements

No! but a person should also not expect the tax payers to pick up the bill if they do get sick and can not pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2010, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,703,250 times
Reputation: 14818
Yes. Maybe then we'll move up to #35 or #36.


YouTube - "We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,760 posts, read 14,654,294 times
Reputation: 18529
This actually isn't the real divide. The only reason the mandatory coverage provision was proposed was to protect the insurance companies. Otherwise, if we impose a prohibition on preexisting coverage exclusions people could just wait until they got sick to buy insurance.

The key difference is that most Democrats want to extend coverage to everybody and control costs, whereas Republicans want to enrich the insurance and drug companies and are not concerned about expanding coverage to people who can't afford it now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
14,129 posts, read 31,253,676 times
Reputation: 6920
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
This actually isn't the real divide. The only reason the mandatory coverage provision was proposed was to protect the insurance companies. Otherwise, if we impose a prohibition on preexisting coverage exclusions people could just wait until they got sick to buy insurance..
Well it was clear in today's health summit that the republicans do not favor the mandate, which you would think they would if your argument were true. Both seemed to favor imposing the pre-existing condition restriction. The Republicans would do that and then allow premiums on everyone in the individual market to explode. The Democrats seem to take the more rational approach of everyone pays so the cost is spread across a larger pool. I'm not sure though that this will really work unless you get rid of employer based insurance which with an individual mandate would make the pool really huge and spread risk much more effectively. Don't understand why they don't just mandate the federal employee health plan for younger folks and extend Medicare to thos 50+ who are difficult to insure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,698,072 times
Reputation: 9980
I don't think the government should mandate that people buy from private companies, nor should it require employers do so. We should either nationalize the Health Care Industry or go to a Medicare for all single payer system
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:15 PM
 
4,604 posts, read 8,231,864 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
No.
What he said
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,787,921 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
This actually isn't the real divide. The only reason the mandatory coverage provision was proposed was to protect the insurance companies. Otherwise, if we impose a prohibition on preexisting coverage exclusions people could just wait until they got sick to buy insurance.

The key difference is that most Democrats want to extend coverage to everybody and control costs, whereas Republicans want to enrich the insurance and drug companies and are not concerned about expanding coverage to people who can't afford it now.
Eh...if Dems really wanted to extend coverage to everyone and control costs, they would go to a single-payer system or something like the German system.

Both parties want to enrich the insurance companies and drug companies.

One person on Democratic underground said it very well, " People will not be helped by the government unless private industry can profit at the same time."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,190 posts, read 19,462,661 times
Reputation: 5305
I do favor a mandate. It is interesting to note than the mandate was actually originally a Republican idea.

Now, obviously the issue of being able to afford it is a biggie, which is why the mandate language in it will have subsidies to cover those who can't afford it. A key problem in the cost of healthcare is what happens with those who do not have coverage when they seek emergency treatment. If they can't afford the treatment they receive, well that $$ needs to be recouped somehow, and everyone winds up paying for it anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,268,118 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Yes. Maybe then we'll move up to #35 or #36.


YouTube - "We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp
I take it that you and Hipp don't know that the WHO is a UN organization and they want us to appear to be something we surely aren't.

Did you hear Dick Durbin talking about where he wanted to be if he got really sick, today at the dog and pony show? He said the US is where he wants to be. Darned old Democrat lefty doesn't agree with so many of the progressives of his party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2010, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Reality
1,050 posts, read 1,930,543 times
Reputation: 259
With the system now, my answer is yes. Because this is the break down of my visit to the ER:

me $300
guy left of me who doesn't have insurance $300
guy right of me who doesn't have insurance $300

Final bill: $2900 (plus 2K for administration costs )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:12 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top