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.
Absolutely it should be mandatory especially since you re removing the pre existing condition claues.
Why? Well, what is to prevent a perfectly healthy individually from paying for coverage UNTIL the illness presents itself.
Let's put it in another context.
You're a driver that has no insurance because the law says that it's not mandatory. And, car insurance has a "no pre existing" clause (somewhat retroactive).
Monday, you have an accident. Woops.. no insurance.. So later that afternoon you call and get insruance.. and say "oh, by t he way, I had an accident today , here's the bill!
That doesn't work. AND THAT will encourage more and more people from NOT carrying health insurance .. why should they because if they get sick all they have to do is sign up, stat paying the premiums today and get immediate coverage for their condition.
THAT doesn't make sense and is just about the ONLY argument from the health insurance industry that I actually agree with.
And indeed, if they fail to have coverage than they should pay a "fine" for not having the coverage. Which, IMO , should go right into a "health fund" that subsidizes uncompensated care in hospitals and clinics. THAT lessens the burden on the rest of us.
I'm all for it being mandatory if we have a choice in either having our insurance from a non-profit entity or a private health insurance company.
I don't want my health care being decided by some CEO who decides he wants to jack up my premiums for the year and deny me medically necessary care so he can get a new summer home or because he needs to beat Wall Street's estimates.
I don't mind there being subsidies for people who can't afford it.
I'd rather just have single-payer and call it a day. Either single payer or some VERY strong regulation of the health insurance industry like Germany.
You're a driver that has no insurance because the law says that it's not mandatory. And, car insurance has a "no pre existing" clause (somewhat retroactive).
Driving is a privlidge, and car insurance indeed does have pre existing clauses. If you have high traffic tickets, numerous wrecks, car insurance companies increase your costs or refuse to cover you.
I don't care WHO mandates it.. the state or the feds.. what the hell is the difference.. but it should be mandated..period. CAR insurance is mandated.. if I'm not mistaken it is so in almost every state in the U.S.
The difference between Car insurance and health insurance.. lack of car insurance doesn't lead to death . It harms ONLY the individual that doesn't have car insurance and therefore gets sued for personal assets to cover damages to the other party, if the accident warrants. Yes, the other party does suffer if they can never collect for the damages.. BUT.. it does not have a long term affect on the rest of society. Non the less, car insurance should be mandated.
Lack of Health insurance can lead to death .. AND.. DOES cost billions of dollars to the rest of the citizens ..harming the society as a whole and shifting the burden on the rest of us. ..
Driving is a privlidge, and car insurance indeed does have pre existing clauses. If you have high traffic tickets, numerous wrecks, car insurance companies increase your costs or refuse to cover you.
I understand that.. I was simply putting into a context which people may relate too.
Driving is a privledge, yes.. However MEDICAL care is NOT a privledge.. AND when someone doesn't haev insurance it affects everyone else.
AND.. as I stated, you can't eliminate pre-existing clauses without mandating coverage for the reasons I posted..
you are then allowing everyone else to not carry it while only teh sickets would be purchasing health insurance because without the worry of not being covered for the 'what if' because of removal of pre-existing clauses, many would go without it until and unless they absolutely needed it.
Let people make the choice. Assuming it is available equally to all, if they choose not insure themselves either they pay cash at time of treatment or we pitch them to the street. I don't want my dollars subsidizing somebody who chooses not to insure themselves.
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.
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.
