Forced Health Insurance

I would doubt it. I think there's a huge gap between people who buy homes even for the first time and people who don't have health insurance. Most people recognize the importance of health insurance, but may forego purchasing it in the 20's because they really can't afford it and figure they're unlikely to need it for hospitalization. It doesn't seem likely that many of these people would then be able to get a mortgage and buy a home for several hundred thousand dollars at a minimum.

I don't know the details of what people will be forced to buy, but if it's for hospitalization or emergency room type of coverage then I think it's a good idea. If these uncovered people buys a place, they will surely have trouble keeping their homes in case of a major medical problem. Maybe this doesn't apply to Manhattan, but if we allow people not to have to get car insurance, they can afford to buy a house??? A more expensive house?

huh?

Besides, I believe most first time home buyers are in their 30's...

So now you believe there is a correlation between home ownership and health?

jazzman, everyone should have health insurance. everyone.

I'm certainly not speaking of NYC - The median price of a home in the south and midwest is about $150K. So take a recent college grad who's been at his $40K/yr job for two years. He works for a small business that doesn't provide health insurance, but because he's single and healthy and has no assets and no kids he choses not to have health insurance. If a catastrophe happens to him, he gets health coverage he just has to declare bankruptcy.
But if you require him to pay $700/month for health insurance he can't buy a house - don't require him to buy health insurance and he can buy the house.

wow...talk about a strawman.

Oh, so now it is easy to declare bankruptcy and there are no implications? Your scenario is a joke.

jazzman, if he doesn't have health insurance the cost to society can be huge. and letting him buy a house because he doesn't have health care, well, i'm hoping you're engaging in irony.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with renting. Wait until you can really afford to buy. (And buy when it makes financial sense.)

From what I've read about requiring all persons to have health coverage, it's really intended to cover people who either can't get health coverage through their jobs or are unemployed or otherwise can't easily get health coverage. It's possible that your scenario may be true in a few instances, but I don't think that was a focus or intent of the legislators with respect to this type of coverage. I just hope that they don't require individuals to have to pay $700 per month.

Everyone should have to get insurance. I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's emergency room care through higher premiums.

Notwithstanding that responsible people should have health insurance there are things that should be made clear about the current legislative proposals, its relationship to the structure of our country, our Federal government, and the Individual's relationship to said government.

The health insurance mandate as is detailed in the House and Senate health bills are unconstitutional. Under these schemes it will be required for all citizens to purchase an "approved" health care plan. Citizens that do not purchase health insurance shall be fined. Not paying the fine results in incarceration in Federal prison. Plainly said: *not* purchasing what the Federal government tells you to purchase will become a crime. Do you get it?

This is not the manner in which the Federal government relates to the Citizen in our Constitution. Our Constitution is clear on the topic and is overwhelmingly dominated by what the Federal government *Cannot* do to the Citizen. For example, it cannot enact laws that infringe on our due process rights (right to a fair trial), freedoms of religion, press, right to bear arms, right to vote, and so on. It says nothing about what the Federal government *must* do on our behalf or what it must *force* us to do for the greater good. It's setup that way for a very good reason...so that a central authority can't sit back in Washington and tyrannically dictate what individuals are going to do and not do in their everyday lives.

Nothing...NOTHING in our Constitution empowers the Federal government to force citizens to purchase goods or services. The precedent would be very dangerous and should be frightening to any free person who values liberty. A government that abuses its power and enacts legislation to force one to purchase health insurance can force one to do a multitude of things if it's considered "for the greater good". Sick sick thinking people.

so...how do you square this with mandated auto insurance?

or your bank requiring homeowner's insurance?

I'm pretty sure you can't buy either insurance from me either. It must be from an 'approved' insurance company.

huh? are you an insurance company?

What are you talking about?

sunday, are you saying that insurance is highly regulated? NOOO. say it isn't so. i'd really like to purchase my life insurance policy from any old fraudster out there.

660 was making a point that it must be an approve insurance company as if that was a bad thing. With enough choices, 'approved' just means regulated/certified/etc... I can't just call myself an insurance company and start collecting premiums and run away with the money when someone tries to file a claim.

are you crazy? you can't call yourself an insurance company? well you also can't call yourself a mule and start carring packages down the Grand Canyon.

Will not having insurance be a federal crime? Can someone receive jail time for it? If it isn't a federal crime, are there any other precedents for the government fining people for non-criminal acts?

Yes, a violation, like a parking ticket, is not a crime but can carry a fine.

AR, I'm not saying insurance companies are highly regulated. I am saying it is regulated. It's better than allowing me to sell you car insurance and I don't mean just as a broker. As for life insurance, I'm not sure about that...

sunday, most insurance companies are highly regulated (on a state level, NY fairly highly regulated, so much so that some P&C companies are giving up their business here because they don't like the loss reserve requirement). health, not as much. life, very much, although there are those trying to get around that as well.

AR, honestly I didn't know how regulated each is. Thanks for the info. I was just pointing out that 660incontract's point that having people buy only insurance from companies that can actually pay the claim is not a bad thing or unconstitutional.

660 is correct. A mandate for people to have to buy insurance or else be subject to a tax and then incarceration has serious constitutional problems. Of course, Pelosi and Obama cannot fathom government power being limited by that pesky Constitution.

of course mandated insurance is possible. as cc pointed out auto. as i pointed out renting or owning, you can be required to purchase insurance.

where in the consitution does it possibly preclude the obligation to purchase insurance if deemed necessary by the state? and if there are no provisions covering it, it at the very worst may be deemed to be a states' issue. but the feds could force the states to deal with it. sort of like the drinking age and highway funds.

If you don't pay the medicare tax, what can the IRS currently do to you?

Sunday, re: "Everyone should have to get insurance."

Too bad the Constitution disagrees. They'll never get it thru.

I'm not a lawyer, but people here on this thread already pointed out many "precedent' that shows the constitutional arguments will probably not work.

You cannot be that obtuse to compare forcing everyone to buy health insurance to auto insurance. People do not need to own a car. It is a voluntary purchase. You don't need to buy auto insurance if you do not buy a car. Owning a car rightfully requires licensing and registration. As part of that voluntary process, it is appropriate for government to require insurance.
This is far different from requiring a person, regardless of any voluntary activity, from entering into a commercial transaction for health insurance.
Understand the Constitution. It does not have to preclude government. It is an empowering document, and government has no powers other than what the Constitution provides. It does not provide the government the power to mandate every person to buy health insurance.

Hi columbiacounty. Auto Insurance is not federally mandated; it's a function of state law which varies state-to-state...not the Federal government. Nothing in our Constitution empowers the Federal government to force individuals to purchase auto insurance either. That's how it squares. Furthermore, the value in restricting the powers of our Federal government to those *enumerated* powers is clear. When you have powers left to the States, and then to the People you have power diffused all over the place. That coupled with the incredible mobility in our great Nation is a wonderful thing. If taxes and insurance premiums are intolerable in New York, and that really sticks in your craw, you can pick up and move to Arizona, or Deleware, or Nevada where those burdens are much lower. And this has happened and is occurring now.

Hi aboutready. A bank telling you that you purchase homeowner's insurance is an element of a private contract that you freely enter into between a private company (the Bank) and and Individual...not the Individual and the Federal government. Nobody is forcing you at the barrel of a gun to anything. And it's fairly plain why the bank does this which is a simple idea...it's *their* money you are borrowing and they want their investment protected until you pay it off. You know what's funny, if you purchase a home all cash you aren't necessarily required by anybody to purchase homeowners. You might be required by your condo or coop board of course...but you see still that is a contract that your freely enter into with another private entity. Not the Federal government telling you to do something.

Hi Sunday and Benhinn. It's not a parking ticket. The tax involved in non-compliance would typically be 2.5% of income. You should familiarize yourself with the Pelosi bill, particularly sec 501 that clearly states that all individuals must purchase "acceptable" coverage. It doesn't have anything to do with an approved or regulated insurance company at all. It has to do with the type and levels of coverage that the Federal government dictates you, an individual citizen *must* purchase. Not carrying coverage (non-compliance) results in a tax "not to exceed the applicable national average premium". It's written plainly in the bill ok? Look it up. Now, not buying insurance is not a crime. However, not paying the resultant tax IS a crime for sure.

As you may be aware, failure to pay Federal taxes subjects you to a variety of civil and criminal penalties clearly outlined in sections 7201 and 7203 of the Federal code. Among them are fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years. That's existing law by the way and people are fined routinely are sent to the pen for failure to pay their Federal taxes.

Nothing in our Constitution empowers these jokers to do what they are trying to do. Nothing in the House or Senate schemes protects individuals from the civil and criminal penalties that would result from not complying with what the Federal government tells you to do in terms of purchasing insurance and not paying the resulting "tax".

Get it people? I hope so, sincerely.

The Obama/Pelosi/Reid health care proposals are a disaster. They are not trying to improve health care, lower costs and expand coverage in the best ways possible. They are moving to increase government power and control, pure and simple. If this passes, it would make things worse instead of better, which is shameful.

Isn't it better than medicare? I know the Fed is making me pay for it.

"The median price of a home in the south and midwest is about $150K. So take a recent college grad who's been at his $40K/yr job for two years. He works for a small business that doesn't provide health insurance, but because he's single and healthy and has no assets and no kids he choses not to have health insurance. If a catastrophe happens to him, he gets health coverage he just has to declare bankruptcy.
But if you require him to pay $700/month for health insurance he can't buy a house - don't require him to buy health insurance and he can buy the house."

You are just tempting fate, Jazzman.

God help you if YOU ever find yourself the victim of bad timing or misfortune.

But hey -- there are always those shelters you can go to, yes?

of course no one wants to deal with the fact that the fundamental reason for mandated coverage is to end the discrimination against pre-existing conditions. can't have one without the other.

so...who's for not granting insurance for those with pre-existing conditions?

Hi Columbia. What are you saying? Are you saying that these proposals address that issue in an effective way and you are in favor? Or are you saying something else? I don't understand.

i am saying that we cannot have health care insurance that does not discriminate against pre existing conditions unless insurance is mandated for everyone. very simple concept. i went on to inquire as to who is for continuing to not make insurance available for anyone with a pre-existing condition.

columbia, your assertion is false. There are better ways to improve health care insurance, and have affordable health care insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, than to try an unconstitutional mandate on everyone to buy insurance.

how can you handle pre-existing conditions without a mandate? have you thought about this in any way? if there is no mandate, there is no reason to obtain insurance until you need it. exactly like being able to purchase auto insurance just after you've had an accident. how can that work?

Driving is not a right.

apparently, neither is reading or thinking. perhaps you might want to read my post before responding?

Most people would buy health insurance if it were affordable to them, even if they do not have pre-existing conditions. A small percentage would not, but most would. The first problem is that health insurance is employer-based instead of individual based. Remove the employer tax exemption and give individuals a tax credit to purchase insurance, and risk pools would be more stable allowing for lower costs. Second, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. That would bring real competition and help lower costs. Third, enact meaningful tort reform, which would lower costs. You can then enact insurance regulations to protect those with pre-existing conditions and the system would work.
It is incredible that some people are so willing to disrespect the Constitution and give up individual liberty to government power.

what stops someone from not purchasing insurance until they come down with an illness that makes it worth it to them?

What asshole?

another informed comment? i disagree=you're a jerk?

No, you are a jerk because of your tone.

do you want to tell us more about driving?

CC, I would want mandated health coverage even without forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I would be for amending the constitution to do it is necessary, though I doubt it's necessary since we already have medicare.

I understand that we cannot force insurance company to take people with pre-existing conditions without mandating coverage for all. That's not something to agree or disagree on, it's whether you understand it's a requirement or not. I am not sure if I'm for or against this yet.

Could be lots of things columbia. Maybe they have a family and children and want insurance for peace of mind in case their children get sick. Maybe they have a high risk job.

In this country, people value freedom. I do. You, I guess not so much.

does preexisting condition include being a jerk?

LICComent: "You can then enact insurance regulations to protect those with pre-existing conditions and the system would work."

Can you explain the above part in more details? No quite so simple as you put it...

this isn't about freedom. if i have the ability to purchase health care insurance at any time regardless of pre-existing conditions, why would i buy it until i needed it? this seems to be the same silly argument about allowing wall street to self regulate. how can you advocate setting up a system that forces people to act against their own economic self interest? why would anyone do that?

An individual health care decision is on par with Goldman Sachs and AIG and housing derivatives? Fool

i don't understand=you're an idiot? merely exercising your rights as a citizen. the freedom to be ignorant.

Idiot, jerk, asshole. Whatever floats your boat. If you want to be a rude jerk, I guess that is your right too. If you are born stupid like comparing Goldman Sachs to a guy who doesn't buy health insurance, I guess we do have the right to laugh at your ignorance.

Employer-based health insurance does not have pre-existing condition exlusions. That is because the pools are large enough. Apply that nationwide by replacing employer-based health insurance with individual tax credits, and things will work similarly.

what's your guess on the annual rate of increase of current employer based health insurance? and you still haven't answered the fundamental question of what stops people from waiting to purchase insurance until they need it?

columbia, are you that dense? Do you think that the only people who have employer-based health insurance now are people who acquired it after getting an illness? The percentage of people who have it available, are not sick, can afford it, and choose not to are relatively small.

columbia, do you just read my response to your question, ignore it, and then keep asking the same question. Do you think most people with families and children will choose not to have health insurance because their children are not sick right now?

employer based insurance is self selecting to minimize those with significant illness.

of course they would if they have the option of obtaining it when the illness arrives. it may be morally shaky but certainly it represents economic rationality.

And on top off all this, the Constitution does not allow a federal mandate to buy health insurance. Show me one other example of the federal government having the power to force people into an otherwise voluntary commercial transaction. Are you proposing a Constitutional amendment?

now its your turn to answer my question.

You have no facts to back that up. Show me all these healthy people with employer-based insurance available who choose not to have it.

OMG what an idiot, have you ever worked for an employer who gave health insurance?

You are the idiot who thinks that not buying health insurance is the same as Goldman Sachs and AIG needing bailouts.

employer based insurance doesn't work as you suggest. there is an annual enrollment period---if you don't enroll at that time, you have to wait a year to enroll or show hardship which is typically the loss of coverage from your spouse---not the arrival of a significant illness.

LIC, the problem with that idea is that it would probably result in even less people getting health coverage. The responsible people who do get the insurance will end up paying even higher rates.

Enrollment upon hire and then re-enrollment annually automatically.

No one has answer CC's question: "what stops people from waiting to purchase insurance until they need it?"

No one has responded to my point about Medicare. Is Medicare unconstitutional too?

Sunday, not if all the reforms are put in place. Individual credits, cross-state competition and tort reform will bring down costs. Also, changes to the system to focus on quality of care instead of quantity of care would also be a major benefit.

CC: "of course they would if they have the option of obtaining it when the illness arrives. it may be morally shaky but certainly it represents economic rationality."

Agreed! If people always do what is moral, we won't need a government at all.

of course the beauty of what you're advocating is that is doesn't seem to affect you. and it certainly sounds good. lets screw the lawyers because everyone hates them anyway----of course, the actual numbers of what would be saved with caps on awards are disappointingly low but hey that's a detail. lets have cross state competition which again sounds good but would be a nightmare to actually administer and finally---individual credits? how would that work to lower costs?

and then the holy grail of holy grails---focus on quality of care....but of course, they is code speak for rationing which is another one that brings everyone howling from the hills.

LIC, the current plan includes individual credits for people who can't afford it and I agree with the other reforms you mentioned and can be included. If they get all that through without mandating coverage, I would still be happy with it. It's better than nothing. However, as stated before, without mandating coverage, pre-existing condition cannot be forced on to the insurance company.

columbia, your claim that tort reform would not lower costs is a liberal myth. The threats of crazy malpractice suits causes needlessly costly defensive medicine and crazy malpractice insurance premiums that raise costs on health professionals.
Other industries have cross-state insurance competition. Administration is not a problem.
Also, with cross-state competition, companies can offer a variety of plans. If a 25 year-old doesn't want to buy expensive insurance but is offered a catastrophic plan at a lower premium, and gets a tax credit, he/she would have little incentive to fail to get insurance and try to game the system.

columbia, why don't you just admit that you favor socialism and you hate the individual freedoms upon which this country is based?

i don't hate individual freedoms....i am disappointed to see what they have turned into...

primarily, the freedom to be stupid, unethical, and selfish. all of which are cherished by many of our fellow citizens.

i cherish the freedom to be self reliant, involved with others as i choose and always remain aware of the interdependence that exists amongst all of us.

LIC: "If a 25 year-old doesn't want to buy expensive insurance but is offered a catastrophic plan at a lower premium, and gets a tax credit, he/she would have little incentive to fail to get insurance and try to game the system."

Absolutely not true! They will most definitely game the system. They would rather spend that money on a new gadget or a trip somewhere.

Then they wouldn't get a tax credit.

unless you're proposing that the tax credit would exceed their premium costs, they're still ahead of the game. and, if they have a medical problem down the road, then they purchase insurance. and, we're all screwed.

good idea.

columbia, you are now becoming illogical. Read up on things so you know what you are talking about before you comment please.

yeah...i missed this week's weekly standard. damn.

44,000 people die a year because they have no health insurance according to a study by Harvard. I highly doubt Pelois/ Reid/ Obama could make te system worse LICC Comment.

and I should also add that allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines is a HORRIBLE idea. Here is why: the insurance companies would all move to a state with anti consumer, pro business consumer protection laws. Once they do that, they can cover less procedures and rip you off even more.

MIT: Americans will pay less for health insurance under Senate bill:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29959.html

Oops, where there goes all of the talking points from the RNC, US Chamber of Commerce, AHIP, Cato Institute, etc.

Ooooohhhh. I got a good one. Let's eliminate the $500k cap gain elimination for 'home' and interest ded of non primary residences, boats. And pay for universal healthcare.

As to defensive med, yes it exists. My solution for tort reform, 5 lost cases ambulance chaser loses license for 2 years.

Columbia.....I really take offense...Americans are SELFISH????
Are you out of your mind? Americans are the most generous people on earth!!!
This is the only country in the WORLD that people are dying to get into!
This is the only country in the world where you can come from a poor family and achieve greatness. Only the USA gives us these opportunities because we are capitalists not SOCIALISTS or worse!
Go talk to scientists, doctors all over the world - they get funding for their research from the USA and if they could, they would live here in a heartbeat!
Go live in SOCIALIST EUROPE where people don't have any idea what it means to give their OWN money to charities or for that matter don't know what tipping and gratuities are all about!
You really should be ashamed to speak about the USA the way you do.

If you allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines, you can implement minimum guidelines. How can other industries do it without all these problems? It is only a problem if you want a socialist answer to everything.

you already can buy insurance across state lines. For instance, Aetna is based in Connecicut, but you can buy their policy in virtually any state. The same is true for most of the other mega insurers.

What about having health insurance that covers you in any state?
My insurance only covers me in the tri-state area. Coverage in other states is only for emergencies.

I'm not a free market person quite honestly. In fact, if you think about it, business organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Foundation, Freedom Works, etc. have done more damage to the U.S. than Al Qaeda.

Hi Sunday, "Is Medicare unconstitutional too?" The Court has said that it is not, but any elementary reading of the Constitution would tell you that it is. The Court is supposed to rule on constitutionality, not what it thinks is a good idea, or to advance its social or political agenda, or anything else. The court regularly short circuits the correct process because it just wants a certain result.

But there is a correct process to address national issues not covered in the Constitution and it's *amending the Constitution*. It's been done over 20 times to address various critical issues or enhance or restrict Federal power in some way. Issues that cannot be resolved, particularly concerns regarding Power are issues to be pass-through'ed to the States or the People.

Providing coverage is not an enumerated power of Congress. Providing and supporting a navy, check. Providing post offices, check. Printing money, check. Providing health coverage, sorry.

660, I understand your argument and it definitely has merit. There are of course also many who believe the constitution is a 'living document' and their arguments have much merit as well. In any case, I'm no lawyer, but you do realize that Medicare has set the precedent for this, therefore the chance of the courts stepping in is very unlikely. You have a better chance with hoping that it doesn't pass both the Senate and House.

Hi Sunday; thank you for the conversation...it's been interesting and thought-provoking. The precedent set by Medicare is what it is; I agree. Medicare will likely go broke one day and hopefully the younger generations will be weaned-off before it does. Medical savings accounts and other measures based on individual freedom and personal responsibility are attempts at preparing for this event.

In terms of the Constitution, yes it's a "living document" but not in the way you've implied. Respectfully, the living document is living because there is an orderly, lawful, and open process to making changes...amendments as I previously stated. The 3/4 of states required to ratify an amendment is the most difficult hurdle to get over in our system...more than a simple majority, 60% for senatorial cloture, cabinet and judicial appointments, etc. It *should* be hard to do because you really want the country on-board before you change the way our country works. Anything short of that is minimally an insult to the rights of States and the People and of course an invitation for chaos.

There are tons of examples of doing it the incorrect, illogical, or disorderly way: the Dred Scott case where the Court ruled that slavery was OK, Roe in which the Court granted abortion rights based on the 14th when it actually did nothing of the sort (it bestowed formal citizenship and due process rights for Negros and former slaves as any elementary student knows), or the recent Grutter v Bollinger case in which the Court ruled that racial quotas in education were un-constitutional in 4-year schools but constitutional in law school and advanced degree settings. Illogical, arbitrary, unjust, and disrespectful of the Constitution in all cases.

This mandate aspect specifically runs afoul of the Constitution because it fundamentally changes the relation between the Federal government and the citizen. At the moment the constitution basically lets them collect income taxes which is permitted by the 16th amendment. Now they want to empower the Feds to dictate what goods and services individuals *must* purchase. Huh?

So rhetorically speaking, if the Constitution does not place limits on Federal power, what *does* place limits exactly?