Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

[SeerSGB]

Will you be paying into this system? Just wondering.

I would be. I've been paying for health insurance for years and I have always paid my taxes. I'm not one of the "free riders" you seem to be so concerned about, and I have said repeatedly that I support as close to a European-style system as we can get--one in which everyone who works pays a tax, and everyone gets the health care they need, without having to go bankrupt or otherwise stressing about how they'll pay for it.

Well, I question the federal government requiring citizens to purchase a product or face imprisonment. Doesn't seem very American to me.

So you oppose auto-insurance then? Mandatory school attendance for children under the age of 18?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Will you be paying into this system? Just wondering.

I would be. I've been paying for health insurance for years and I have always paid my taxes. I'm not one of the "free riders" you seem to be so concerned about, and I have said repeatedly that I support as close to a European-style system as we can get--one in which everyone who works pays a tax, and everyone gets the health care they need, without having to go bankrupt or otherwise stressing about how they'll pay for it.

Well, I question the federal government requiring citizens to purchase a product or face imprisonment. Doesn't seem very American to me.

Which is why I would favor simply making it a tax instead. This nonsense with propping up insurance companies--forcing people to buy into them--is hardly my first choice. I would prefer a public option that anyone could buy into, with subsidies for people with low/no income. Above all, though, I would favor a single-payer system.

 

[Gertch]

So you oppose auto-insurance then? Mandatory school attendance for children under the age of 18?

You don't have to buy auto insurance simply because you live in the US. Only if you want to drive.

Minors are not adults and do not have the rights of an adult.

 

[SeerSGB]

So you oppose auto-insurance then? Mandatory school attendance for children under the age of 18?

You don't have to buy auto insurance simply because you live in the US. Only if you want to drive.

Minors are not adults and do not have the rights of an adult.

Ah, but in both cases you have govt. mandates that you are penalized for if you fail to fulfill the requirement: Drivers can have their personal property seized; parents sent to jail for failure to send their children to an govt. recognized school.

Effectively, we're already forced into paying for or buying services or products that the govt. says we have to have.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

If you mean "do I pay my taxes" then yes, of course. Don't you? I therefore currently pay into the Canadian system and would be paying into a hypothetical US one if such a progressive program is implemented and I decide to move back, though the two are unrelated.

I fail to see what this has to do, however, with the fact that you have zero actual data to back up your argument.

One doesn't need to provide data to make the statement that if someone pays nothing for something they are getting a free ride. Even in this corner of the galaxy two plus two equals four.

Huh?

If the US implemented UHC tomorrow, I would not be paying into it. I would also not be using it. This does not constitute a free ride. If I decided to move back to the US, I would be using it. And also paying into it. This does not constitute a free ride. This is all very simple. What about it do you not understand? I'd be perfectly happy to walk you through it again if you are having difficulty with it.

Did I say you in particular were getting a free ride here in the U.S.? I don't think I did. But feel free to reread what I wrote. Or I could walk you through it.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I would be. I've been paying for health insurance for years and I have always paid my taxes. I'm not one of the "free riders" you seem to be so concerned about, and I have said repeatedly that I support as close to a European-style system as we can get--one in which everyone who works pays a tax, and everyone gets the health care they need, without having to go bankrupt or otherwise stressing about how they'll pay for it.

Well, I question the federal government requiring citizens to purchase a product or face imprisonment. Doesn't seem very American to me.

So you oppose auto-insurance then? Mandatory school attendance for children under the age of 18?

Auto insurance is not mandatory for any citizen. Children do not have to attend a public school.

 

[ST-One]

Becasue he won't want to hear their answers because the majority of people in countries with UHC (which would include both liberals and conservatives) generally want to keep their systems.

A few years back, in Australia my GP wanted me to see a specialist to look into the cause of my high blood preasure. I got into see him with in 3 months, had tests (bloods, x-rays, urine, ultrasound) and second appointment a couple of months later. Cost me about $1000.

Now 5 years later I'm going through the same thing in Canada covered by OHIP in Ontario. Three months to get into the cardilogist (who btw makes has the bedside manner of a newly activated EMH) and back to see him within 3 months but I put one of the tests off which through the schedule out the window. Cost to me? $50 for the 24hr BP monitor.

Doesn't sound like rationing to me.

I wouldn't have been able to wait that long. After my Stroke I saw a cardiologist within a month who then sent me to see a pediatric cardiologist who I saw within a week, who, after a few tests, had me in surgery within 6 months and it was only that long because the other cardiologist thought I was stable. I would have been in surgery months earlier, probably within a week.

So, instead of the six months Marc had to wait you just had to wait over seven months?
Yeah, that's faster.

 

[Arrqh]

One doesn't need to provide data to make the statement that if someone pays nothing for something they are getting a free ride. Even in this corner of the galaxy two plus two equals four.

Huh?

If the US implemented UHC tomorrow, I would not be paying into it. I would also not be using it. This does not constitute a free ride. If I decided to move back to the US, I would be using it. And also paying into it. This does not constitute a free ride. This is all very simple. What about it do you not understand? I'd be perfectly happy to walk you through it again if you are having difficulty with it.

Did I say you in particular were getting a free ride here in the U.S.? I don't think I did. But feel free to reread what I wrote. Or I could walk you through it.

Then who, exactly, are you talking about? These theoretical unnumbered people who you constantly reference but are unable to provide actual data on? If you're so convinced that you are right, I don't understand why this sort of data is difficult. Surely if the only purpose of healthcare reform is so people can get free rides, proving it should be trivial! So why don't you want to?

 

[Gertch]

So you oppose auto-insurance then? Mandatory school attendance for children under the age of 18?

You don't have to buy auto insurance simply because you live in the US. Only if you want to drive.

Minors are not adults and do not have the rights of an adult.

Ah, but in both cases you have govt. mandates that you are penalized for if you fail to fulfill the requirement: Drivers can have their personal property seized; parents sent to jail for failure to send their children to an govt. recognized school.

Effectively, we're already forced into paying for or buying services or products that the govt. says we have to have.

No.

 

[SeerSGB]

You don't have to buy auto insurance simply because you live in the US. Only if you want to drive.

Minors are not adults and do not have the rights of an adult.

Ah, but in both cases you have govt. mandates that you are penalized for if you fail to fulfill the requirement: Drivers can have their personal property seized; parents sent to jail for failure to send their children to an govt. recognized school.

Effectively, we're already forced into paying for or buying services or products that the govt. says we have to have.

No.

So you're free to drive without owning insurance? Or not send your kids to a govt. recognized school? Free to do so without free of penalty.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Huh?

If the US implemented UHC tomorrow, I would not be paying into it. I would also not be using it. This does not constitute a free ride. If I decided to move back to the US, I would be using it. And also paying into it. This does not constitute a free ride. This is all very simple. What about it do you not understand? I'd be perfectly happy to walk you through it again if you are having difficulty with it.

Did I say you in particular were getting a free ride here in the U.S.? I don't think I did. But feel free to reread what I wrote. Or I could walk you through it.

Then who, exactly, are you talking about? These theoretical unnumbered people who you constantly reference but are unable to provide actual data on? If you're so convinced that you are right, I don't understand why this sort of data is difficult. Surely if the only purpose of healthcare reform is so people can get free rides, proving it should be trivial! So why don't you want to?

When we're counting in the millions it can be a tad difficult to number all of them. Perhaps when the White House checks those 2010 census #'s they decided to have internalized we'll be able to see who will and will not be getting the aforementioned free ride.

And the best part? We'll be paying taxes on this for years even before the free ride begins! That'll give us even more time to get an accurate count.

 

[Arrqh]

When we're counting in the millions it can be a tad difficult to number all of them. Perhaps when the White House checks those 2010 census #'s they decided to have internalized we'll be able to see who will and will not be getting the aforementioned free ride.

So... past census data isn't good enough for you? Why not? Isn't there any information on uninsured people using emergency rooms? Free clinics? That sort of thing? Do you know how many uninsured people there are in the US? What percentage of those people don't have coverage because of preexisting conditions? Any numbers at all?

Bottom line: if you cannot back up your assertions with facts, why bother making them?

 

[Misfit Toy]

Did I say you in particular were getting a free ride here in the U.S.? I don't think I did. But feel free to reread what I wrote. Or I could walk you through it.

Then who, exactly, are you talking about? These theoretical unnumbered people who you constantly reference but are unable to provide actual data on? If you're so convinced that you are right, I don't understand why this sort of data is difficult. Surely if the only purpose of healthcare reform is so people can get free rides, proving it should be trivial! So why don't you want to?

When we're counting in the millions it can be a tad difficult to number all of them. Perhaps when the White House checks those 2010 census #'s they decided to have internalized we'll be able to see who will and will not be getting the aforementioned free ride.

And the best part? We'll be paying taxes on this for years even before the free ride begins! That'll give us even more time to get an accurate count.

YOU made the claim. Let's see the figures. Back up your argument.

 

[ST-One]

You don't have to buy auto insurance simply because you live in the US. Only if you want to drive.

Minors are not adults and do not have the rights of an adult.

Ah, but in both cases you have govt. mandates that you are penalized for if you fail to fulfill the requirement: Drivers can have their personal property seized; parents sent to jail for failure to send their children to an govt. recognized school.

Effectively, we're already forced into paying for or buying services or products that the govt. says we have to have.

No.

Err, yes.

Did I say you in particular were getting a free ride here in the U.S.? I don't think I did. But feel free to reread what I wrote. Or I could walk you through it.

Then who, exactly, are you talking about? These theoretical unnumbered people who you constantly reference but are unable to provide actual data on? If you're so convinced that you are right, I don't understand why this sort of data is difficult. Surely if the only purpose of healthcare reform is so people can get free rides, proving it should be trivial! So why don't you want to?

When we're counting in the millions it can be a tad difficult to number all of them. Perhaps when the White House checks those 2010 census #'s they decided to have internalized we'll be able to see who will and will not be getting the aforementioned free ride.

And the best part? We'll be paying taxes on this for years even before the free ride begins! That'll give us even more time to get an accurate count.

You do like that term 'free ride', don't you?

There is nothing 'free' about UHC. Never was, never will be.

Well, okay, as a society we in Germany decided decades ago that we should provide health care 'for free' even to those who are unable to pay into the systems themselves.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Then who, exactly, are you talking about? These theoretical unnumbered people who you constantly reference but are unable to provide actual data on? If you're so convinced that you are right, I don't understand why this sort of data is difficult. Surely if the only purpose of healthcare reform is so people can get free rides, proving it should be trivial! So why don't you want to?

When we're counting in the millions it can be a tad difficult to number all of them. Perhaps when the White House checks those 2010 census #'s they decided to have internalized we'll be able to see who will and will not be getting the aforementioned free ride.

And the best part? We'll be paying taxes on this for years even before the free ride begins! That'll give us even more time to get an accurate count.

YOU made the claim. Let's see the figures. Back up your argument.

Start with the 15% below the poverty line who will pay zero. Continue on with families earning 89k or less who will get a subsidy. Not fair if you can walk and talk that you don't pay your part.

 

[RyanKCR]

Becasue he won't want to hear their answers because the majority of people in countries with UHC (which would include both liberals and conservatives) generally want to keep their systems.

A few years back, in Australia my GP wanted me to see a specialist to look into the cause of my high blood preasure. I got into see him with in 3 months, had tests (bloods, x-rays, urine, ultrasound) and second appointment a couple of months later. Cost me about $1000.

Now 5 years later I'm going through the same thing in Canada covered by OHIP in Ontario. Three months to get into the cardilogist (who btw makes has the bedside manner of a newly activated EMH) and back to see him within 3 months but I put one of the tests off which through the schedule out the window. Cost to me? $50 for the 24hr BP monitor.

Doesn't sound like rationing to me.

I wouldn't have been able to wait that long. After my Stroke I saw a cardiologist within a month who then sent me to see a pediatric cardiologist who I saw within a week, who, after a few tests, had me in surgery within 6 months and it was only that long because the other cardiologist thought I was stable. I would have been in surgery months earlier, probably within a week.

So, instead of the six months Marc had to wait you just had to wait over seven months?
Yeah, that's faster.

Uh, you didn't read what I posted. Marc saw a specialist in 3 months I saw one within a month, it may have been sooner, I don't remember. That was only because I prompted it to get off a med. He determined I should see a pediatric one who I got scheduled to see in about a week, if I am remembering correctly, it was almost 10 years ago.

 

[Marc]

Becasue he won't want to hear their answers because the majority of people in countries with UHC (which would include both liberals and conservatives) generally want to keep their systems.

A few years back, in Australia my GP wanted me to see a specialist to look into the cause of my high blood preasure. I got into see him with in 3 months, had tests (bloods, x-rays, urine, ultrasound) and second appointment a couple of months later. Cost me about $1000.

Now 5 years later I'm going through the same thing in Canada covered by OHIP in Ontario. Three months to get into the cardilogist (who btw makes has the bedside manner of a newly activated EMH) and back to see him within 3 months but I put one of the tests off which through the schedule out the window. Cost to me? $50 for the 24hr BP monitor.

Doesn't sound like rationing to me.

I wouldn't have been able to wait that long. After my Stroke I saw a cardiologist within a month who then sent me to see a pediatric cardiologist who I saw within a week, who, after a few tests, had me in surgery within 6 months and it was only that long because the other cardiologist thought I was stable. I would have been in surgery months earlier, probably within a week.

So, instead of the six months Marc had to wait you just had to wait over seven months?
Yeah, that's faster.

Actually I didn't have to wait 6 months.

It was 3 months for the initial consult with the cardiologist who did got my background listened to my chest and heart and did and ECG (nothing out of place).

Had I not posted at test (I was set for two in one day) from the last week of November to the 3rd week of December I would of been in for
* echo dobbler ultrasound
* blood tests/urine analysis
* stress test
* 24hr blood pressure monitor
* cartoid ultrasound
and back to see the cardiologist in late January.

So it would of been all over and done withing 2 months after first consult and 5 months after the initial referral. Had anything shown as critical in the tests as I went along I could of been contacted.

That it's now going to take a bit longer is my fault not the system (the blood pressure monitors are a fucking pain the arse and I wasn't in the mood to put up with one at the time).

 

[Misfit Toy]

Start with the 15% below the poverty line who will pay zero. Continue on with families earning 89k or less who will get a subsidy. Not fair if you can walk and talk that you don't pay your part.

Where did you get your 15% figure?

And families earning 89k or less will be "paying their part", so remove that from your argument.

 

[Chaos Descending]

So you're free to drive without owning insurance?

You can own a car and drive it on private property to your heart's content without owning insurance.

You can NOT drive your car on a government bought and paid for road without insurance.

Seriously, car insurance is a very weak analogy to health insurance, especially mandatory health insurance.

Or not send your kids to a govt. recognized school? Free to do so without free of penalty.

Yes, that is correct. You can always home school your kids.

 

[SeerSGB]

So you're free to drive without owning insurance?

You can own a car and drive it on private property to your heart's content without owning insurance.

You can NOT drive your car on a government bought and paid for road without insurance.

Seriously, car insurance is a very weak analogy to health insurance, especially mandatory health insurance.

Or not send your kids to a govt. recognized school? Free to do so without free of penalty.

Yes, that is correct. You can always home school your kids.

Ah, and I'm a homeschool parent, you are still required to get permission, met certain standards, Fees (in some districts), curriculum and goal sets, and if you don't keep up your requirements your kids are placed back in the Govt. monopoly school system and you can face fines and jail time.

So again, you're still having to adhere to the govt. rules and be recognized as being capable of homeschooling you own kids. You don't have the option not to school your child in some fashion.

The point is that you can't say you don't like being forced by the govt. to do buy XYZ, when day in and day out we are exactly that.