Should everyone have to buy into a health care system?

[newinnm]

There is a segment of the population that doesn't want to be insured or buy into anyones health care package some because they are young and "bullet proof" and some such as the Mennonites because of their religious preference. Should they be forced to be included in whatever health care reform plan that emerges or should people be able to opt out.

-nnnm

[DesertFlower]

1. interesting question.

i just got an e-mail from a friend who says he doesn't want to be forced to buy insurance. he's 52 and has always been in good health, but you never know. shit happens.

[Cha]

17. I don't want to buy into any, either..

I'm 65 in August and haven't had a Dr in conventional medicine for 30 years, nor have I ever had health insurance.

Yeah, shit happens but I'm not buying health insurance to go to a Dr I don't want.

[newinnm]

20. You are being selfish

Some say. What do you say to them?

-nnnm

[Cha]

21. I say I'm responsible for my

own health. I realize it's different than most on here but I know of other people in my life who've never had prescription drugs, either.

I wish everyone luck with whatever path they're on and it seems to be "single payer".

[busymom]

36. Good...now when you get cancer, have a heart attack,

are involved in an unexpected accident and need chemotherapy or ICU care that is more than you can afford and you have to file for bankruptcy and can't pay for it, PLEASE don't come crawling back to beg for financial help or insurance. Personally, I would not be in favor of you asking for coverage only after needing it without ever paying in.

And...I was never sick a day in my life until I was diagnosed with cancer most unexpectedly at age 35....while I was pregant. I never had gotten around to buying a life insurance policy for myself....you snooze you lose....and I wouldn't expect anyone to make an exception for me now....hopefully you won't expect the same.

[eridani]

43. Well bully for you

You are one of the 85% that doesn't have major health care expenses. Statistically, this is not really a major accomplishment--it is the norm. The reason you should be forced to pay is that tomorrow a drunk driver might cause you some serious injury that herbs can't fix. Or not. Still, it could happen to anyone.

No one is allowed to avoid paying taxes to support the fire department just because they wire their houses correctly, don't store oily rags in the basement, and teach their kids not to play with matches either.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

69. Okay

but if you are in a horrible accident, get cancer or some unforseen illness you are on your own. Lets just make that clear.

[DuaneBidoux]

108. I think all should have a choice--and then they should expect to be turned away at ER.

Too many uninsured people already use the ER as a last result knowing the hospital has to treat them and that the cost will be absorbed by those paying their fair share.

If people expect to have the choice to opt out of any healthcare insurance then the country should have a right to expect that if they show up to the ER they are SOL.

[DesertFlower]

25. so you're not going to

get medicare? actually you'll be automatically covered in Part A which does not cost anything. it covers the hospital.

[Cha]

29. Exactly..Part

A..should an accident happen. Believe me, I'm knocking on wood all over the place.

[DesertFlower]

32. i wish you luck.

i tend to use alternative health care providers too, but sometimes stuff happens. a few years ago i was on a small ladder cleaning. i fell and broke my wrist. had to go to the emergency room and wound up having surgery on it.

[Cha]

33. I know..I've been really

fortunate in that department.

I know from breaking wrists..I was on roller skates in 1980 and broke my left one. Not good. I wish us all luck in however we want to address our health.

Buona Salute~

[lindisfarne]

88. Please create a living will which refuses all treatment in any emergency situation which exceeds

your ability to pay, if you choose to not purchase health insurance, especially if we get a public option which subsidizes anyone who cannot afford part or all of the cost.

None of us should have to subsidize your uninsured medical care under that condition.

[GCP]

79. So when you need the $250, 000 dollars for a bypass or cancer treatment

You won't be sucking off the public tit.

Riigghht

[LeFleur1]

109. I Hope You Contribute

...to those bake sales and carwashes for children who have serious illnesses or accidents and have no insurance.

This kind of outlook is what is wrong with America.
It's a "The hell with you and here's to me" attitude.

[Selatius]

2. You already pay into it regardless if you have health insurance or not.

When you pay income tax, part of that tax goes to discretionary health care expenditures. Likewise, if you derive your income from payroll income, you pay into Medicare. How do you opt out without not paying taxes?

[DesertFlower]

5. i think he means the

other mandatory insurance. i think they have it in massachusettes.

[Selatius]

11. At this point, I don't think mandatory health insurance is coming, unless that's included in bill.

If it's mandatory, the question is mute.

[eridani]

44. Yes, MA mandates that you have to buy useless shit from for-profit insurers

That is not the same as being required to pay for guaranteed care. That would be more like paying your property taxes to the fire department. If your house catches fire, they send a truck out. No reason at all why we shouldn't deal with heart attacks in the same way.

[newinnm]

6. Should there be a mechanism for opting out?

[Selatius]

10. Are you asking me should everybody be given the power to opt out of Medicare?

[lindisfarne]

89. You don't have to sign up for Medicare at 65.n/t

[BlooInBloo]

3. (shrug) Should everyone have to buy into a retirement system?

OHNOES!!! We're all communists now!!!

Whatever, whiners.

[newinnm]

7. WTF did you just say

Please write english

[JTFrog]

47. You missed a right turn to the English only forum.

If you're having problems understanding the language of the internet, those English only speaking motherfuckers over at freeperville will help you fit right in.

Funny how those that demand written English can't punctuate or spell worth a damn.

[newinnm]

55. ok then speak french or spanish

I just dont understand whatever language you were using.

-nnnm

[Laelth]

4. I can't "afford" to buy into it.

In civilized countries, people don't have to buy into the health care system. Most of them are simply born into it. Others acquire it after moving there, but no person has to "buy into" health care in a civilized country. The very notion strikes me as absurd and barbaric.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DesertFlower]

8. i've been told that in the

UK a certain amount of your tax goes towards health care, but you're covered from pre-birth to death. if you don't work or you're retired you're still covered. it seems fair to me.

[eridani]

45. Nonsense. They pay taxes for it

If they get sick, they get care. Just like I pay property taxes to support the fire department. If my house catches fire, they send a truck out. If my house doesn't catch fire, I'm certainly not being ripped off.

[Laelth]

52. Agreed.

If you're wealthy enough and lucky enough to have to pay income taxes (or other taxes, for that matter), then you pay in. But your ability to get care is not dependent upon your income, nor your ability to "pay in" to the system.

That's the point I was making. Sorry you felt it was "nonsense."

:dem:

-Laelth

[eridani]

75. There are any number of other kinds of taxes paid by poorer people

Most of Europe, for instance, has national sales taxes.

[Laelth]

82. That is tragic.

No doubt their conservatives pushed for regressive taxes like the sales tax. I prefer progressive income taxation, higher corporate taxation, and higher capital gains taxation, but conservatives often get their way--here and in Europe.

My point was that no person in a civilized country is required to purchase an insurance policy that they can barely afford. They pay taxes, instead, and that's a more fair way to spread the economic burden of the system than mandatory health insurance which would, principally, enrich the already-bloated health insurance companies.

:dem:

-Laelth

[GCP]

80. You think the UK government just conjures up the money from thin air?

It's part of the payroll take-out, called the National Insurance Stamp. Everybody pays who draws a paycheck.

[Laelth]

81. Exactly. Nobody "buys in."

If you are fortunate enough to have a job and pay taxes, the needed revenue to fund the system is automatically deducted from your paycheck. Not having a job and not having income is no barrier to your receiving health care, but if you are fortunate enough to have income, you help fund the system.

Again, nobody "buys in." Nobody is forced to take out an insurance policy they can not afford. People are forced to pay taxes, of course, here and in the U.K.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lindisfarne]

90. Not wholly true. In Germany, people pay a certain percentage of their income unless they're

below a certain level (unless they opt to purchase a private insurance plan instead), in which case there are subsidies.

It's essentially a tax (and most pay some taxes) but collected directly from the tax payer.

[Laelth]

100. Yes, I know.

:)

See three of my posts above.

If you're fortunate enough to have income, then, yes, you get taxed. Just like in the good old U.S. of A. But nobody over there is forced to buy an insurance policy. In that sense, nobody has to "buy into" it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[lindisfarne]

101. Not true. Health insurance is mandatory in Germany. If you don't buy private, you get charged for

the government option.
"With the health insurance reform of 2007, the German government has now implemented a new insurance law which makes insurance mandatory for everybody living in Germany."
http://www.justlanded.com/english/Germany/Germany-Guide/Health/Health-insurance

[Laelth]

102. I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

Too bad for the Germans.

:dem:

-Laelth

[rgbecker]

9. Yes, for sure. That's the point.

Does the 52 year old friend work and pay into Medicare? The idea is to spread the costs over the good years (Young and healthy) and the bad. Eventually most everyone finally gets the hit and someone is going to pay. Even if one is healthy to the end, by paying into the pot that helps everyone, he helps his country. Same as paying for schools, defense, the EPA, the DOT, everything. That's the point of the government. You may not benefit from every program, but you benefit from some of it, like it or not. Maybe if we could pick and choose, we would go with the health care rather than the bombs, at least I would.

[DesertFlower]

he does temp work.

makes between $22 and $25 an hour. i think he can afford $100 a month to pay for health insurance.

[rgbecker]

22. In Massachusetts, you might be interested to note...

They expect you to pay about 10% of your take home for health insurance if you are at about median income. The new health care system here requires you to have insurance or pay an income tax penalty. If you can show you can't afford the cheapest policy available (based on their calculations) you can get a waver. If you can't afford the cheapest policy, you can get a subsidized policy. If your income is at that level, you pay far less than the 10%. Check out this site to see what's happening in Massachusetts, most liberal state in the Union! (Not counting Vermont, which is actually socialist!). www.mahealthconnector.org

[DesertFlower]

27. thanks for the link.

my sis lives in vermont. she's 53. no pre-existing conditions. she pays $372 a month with a $2500 deductible.

[SOS]

59. $100?

Here in New York we have a program called Healthy New York.
It is a state subsidized program for people earning under $26K.
My wife has it. It's not very good, but better than nothing.
The cost is $300 a month.

Let's hope the public option is $100 a month, but it's unlikely.

[amandabeech]

62. $100 a month?

I'm in a similar position (temping at $35, when there's work, which there isn't now), but I have a pre-existing condition that last flared up 9.5 years ago.

I priced policies about 1 1/2 years ago, and I couldn't find anything, not even a crappy policy, for less than $700, and then it wasn't a sure thing that I could actually get a policy due to my pre-existing condition.

Unless health care reform includes a group policy, even a private one, I'll have an extremely difficult time paying.

I want to get a real job, but I'm at the bottom of the barrel in my area. I haven't been able to generate any interest in this economic climate, so I have to count on dumb luck, which I really don't like.

[Oregone]

12. Yes, everyone, via taxation

Single-payer.

If you can't afford it, you don't pay for it anyway if its tax based.

[mwooldri]

30. ditto.

I personally think that a sliding scale of National Insurance Tax would be the best. It could also shore up Social Security and other (dare I say it?) "Welfare" programs.

[lapfog_1]

13. Should everyone pay property taxes (or rent that includes it)

even though they are mostly used to pay for schools and such, even those of us that have no children?

Should we all pay social security, even those of us who either have a small chance of living until retirement or those who won't need their social security checks at retirement?

Should we all be forced to pay gasoline tax even though we don't drive on the interstate freeway or state highways?

And on and on.

The Ayn Rand types would say NO, you shouldn't pay a dime until you make use of the resource... from roads to schools to hospitals.

The more reasonable people would say YES, because roads and schools and water systems and sewage systems and the military and the FBI and the CIA and Social Security and everything is making for a cleaner, safer, and better country in which to live, providing opportunity for all of us to make a decent living, and providing for the common welfare for everyone.

[DesertFlower]

16. exactly.

i became disabled when i was 48 and i was happy for my social security disability payments. in my case, i've collected more than i've paid in. on the other hand, hubby pays the max -- always has. will he get what he put in? probably not.

[Cleita]

14. Just because you get an insurance card, doesn't mean you have to use it.

However, if Congress does its funding right, every one will pay into it, according to their ability to pay. People who want health insurance shouldn't be denied coverage just because some opt to not participate. I know there are people who don't want to pay for public schools because they don't have children or their children are grown up, but it doesn't work that way. In order for the system to work, everyone has to participate. I have never called the Fire Department for a fire, but I pay into it like everyone else. It's a dumb argument not to pay your fair share just because you think you may not need it. Also, young people are not bullet proof. They are the most accident prone of any age group and need medical care as much as anyone else. I don't know what to tell you about the religious groups, but you can be sure that if they work in a place that provides medical coverage that they will get an insurance card like anyone else even if they don't use it.

[JuniperLea]

15. If everyone is in...

It's pennies on the dollar. Yes. Everyone should be in on it. Keep everyone healthy, and less likely to be spreading disease. And less likely to become a burden to the system later on.

[invictus]

18. No one should be forced to pay a private insurer. If we had single-payer, everyone should have to pa

If we had single-payer, everyone should have to pay a health insurance tax, similar to the Medicare tax that funds Medicare.

[Cleita]

23. This is exactly what we should have. The public option came from

the Edwards campaign, but I know that John and Elizabeth were talking about extending Medicare to everyone who were fed up with their insurance. There would have been an option to buy it on the open market. Of course, it would be cheaper and more comprehensive. However, what they are coming up with now is just another Medicare Part D fiasco.

[lindisfarne]

92. Single payer does not require everyone to pay a tax. It can be set up that way, but it does not

have to be.

There are many ways to set up single payer plans. They don't inherently require everyone to be covered.

[ColbertWatcher]

19. "Buy into"?

I think that people will pay what is reasonable to be healthy.

With the healthcare system we have now, too many people in this country avoid going to the doctor not because they are healthy, but because it is not affordable.

That is a false an dangerous "choice".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5896926&mesg_id=5896926

[Bravo Zulu]

24. A lot of people with out insurance,

end up going to the emergency room, that all the rest of us ending up paying for, so, maybe they are just trying to get a free ride!

[sandnsea]

26. Everyone should get a health care card

When people have it, they'll feel such a huge relief that within a month they'll want to contribute their share.

[masuki bance]

28. Weird. Why can't anybody just say "yes" ? nt

[wroberts189]

31. Some people are more worried about their rent. nt

[Sweet and Spicy]

34. I voted for Obama because I was against a mandate

i think it's unfair to force people to buy insurance, and I voted for Obama in part for his opposition to this idea.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. They acted like the mandate issue was so important

and their positions so different. Then he gets elected and suddenly he has no opinion other than he wants lots of Gooper votes. The puppet show of the Primary looks so thin at this point. He never cared one way or the other about mandates. It just made for good dialog.

[lindisfarne]

93. I think it's unfair to ask the public to pay for others' care, if there is an affordable insurance

option (plus subsidies for those under a certain income), should they choose to not purchase health insurance.

You're a freeloader if you count on the goodness of others to get care, should your luck run out, while refusing to buy insurance to cover such a scenario.

If we get the public option, those who choose to not have health insurance should be denied any care which exceeds their demonstrated ability to pay (and should have to carry around proof of ability to pay, or else all emergency care will be denied).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

35. we should have a system like Britain's so everyone gets healthcare

Instead of employers paying for healthcare they could pay their workers more.

I'm sure eventually the system can change but it will take years.

[jeanpalmer]

38. UK system yes

Takes profit motive out of the system altogether.

And should be funded via the income tax. "Taxing" via an insurance premium is very regressive.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. yes

[busymom]

37. ABSOLUTELY!!!

How else will it work? You pay in when you are healthy and use it when you are sick. If you opt out but then only join up when you're sick, that isn't fair to everyone else paying in to cover the cost of your care.

[RoyGBiv]

39. Yes n/t

[handmade34]

40. funded by gov't

via taxes... yes!

[eridani]

41. Only if it is single payer or a government run option

If you don't want to use the service, then tough shit. You send your kids to private school and you still have to pay for the public ones. If you are illiterate, you still pay taxes for the library. If your house has never caught fire, you still pay for the fire department.

What I don't want is to be forced to buy some piece of shit from a for-profit entity which is free to deny claims anytime they want, or to be forced to pay more because of age or health problems.

[sisters6]

48. Yes, the public option from the House is fake (as of now)--as the

markets are still in charge.

[newinnm]

58. So how do you feel about

the Austrailian plan which essentially subsidizes healthcare but essentially forces people to opt into a private hospital plan.

-nnnm

[sisters6]

78. I think we

should all have a health plan. A public plan is best.

[PretzelWarrior]

42. YES> godammit. they have to pay taxes. they can buy into health care

who the fuck said Mennonites don't partake of health care?

[annabanana]

46. We all "buy into" social security with the F.I.C.A. deductions

from our paychecks. It's such a small amount most of us have adjusted OK. If a similar deduction would free me from co-pays and high deductables I say HELLS YEAH!

[Vinca]

49. The fact you are an American citizen should be all you need to

be a part of the health care system. Send everyone a card to present for care and raise taxes to pay for it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Yes, if we are going to continue to require that hospitals provide emmergency services to anyone who

shows up to the ER.

[lunatica]

51. No. Everyone should have access to it though

And it should be paid through taxes. So the handicapped who can't get jobs and children and the elderly who also can't get jobs can have guaranteed health care. That also goes for the poor who don't ever get paid more than minimum wage. People going through college, and even convicted prisoners should all get it. Everyone, no matter who they are or what they're lot in life is should have access to healthcare. It could even go a long way towards helping drug addicts and alcoholics if they could get the help they need and some of those homeless crazy people would get the help they need too.

In the long run it would help a lot of social problems.

[newinnm]

57. Should we extend it to Everyone

In the country regardless of citizenship?

-nnn,

[lunatica]

70. I know lots of non-citizens who pay taxes here

The short answer is yes. You're maybe thinking of illegal aliens, but I work in a University where faculty and students are issued visa's that allow them to work on campus. They pay taxes according to tax treaties that the US has with their country. They are issued these visas by the University. They also ALL have to get a social security card before the can get hired.

Being a non-citizen isn't all about black or white. but I think everyone should get the health care they need. Illegals included because this is the country they're working in

[WyLoochka]

53. Not if it's private

Yes, if we have a strong, humanely subsidized, public option.

[redqueen]

54. Yes. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

56. They should be forced into reeducation camps unless they submit to Single Payer

I read that on the net somewhere.



:sarcasm:

[MadHound]

60. Depends,

Is it a plan where I am mandated to buy into a private insurance plan? Fuck that, that's a sure recipe for having our health insurance jacked up even more.

If it's a single payer, government run health plan that I pay via taxes, then no, I don't have any problem with that.

However the way it's looking now, the "reform" we're going to get is going to be the worst of all possible worlds, a mandated plan that forces everybody to buy insurance, pay taxes on any health benefits we get from work, oh and no public option. In other words the insurance industry will be even further entrenched.

[Ganja Ninja]

63. I don't want to be forced to pay what is essentially a tax to a private

company. I'll gladly pay taxes for a government plan that covers me and has only a token deductible and co-pays and pays 100% of the bills but I don't trust private insurance companies to do that.

[Lost-in-FL]

65. Why not?

I was forced to pay for a War I didn't want.

[ZombieHorde]

66. No, not everyone can afford it. nt

[tinrobot]

67. Yes, it's for the "common good"

Right out of the Constitution.

[Deep13]

68. Yes. Just like we all buy into public education...

...and other services. It is the best way to spread the costs.

Also, the influential members of this society need to have a stake in this to prevent it from languishing as a welfare program.

[themoreuknow]

71. Single payer. I don't think this plan will go far enough to fight

the highway robbery of insurance and drug companies.

[quakerboy]

72. Yes

Civic Responsibility. If you make money, you pay taxes. Health care should be part of the commons. Police, Fire, Roads etc. And now health care. Whether you believe you need them or not, whether you choose to personally use them, if you are profiting in the system, you are almost certainly benefiting from them, and you should pay back to them.

That is not to say that if they do not wish, they should be forced to use them on their own person. That is a separate issue.

On edit, this refers to a single payer system, or potentially even one with a public option. If we are talking purely uncontrolled private insurance, that's an entirely different matter, and I would say Fuck NO to that.

[Sweet and Spicy]

73. Obama thinks a mandate is unfair

And I agree with him.

[RoadRage]

74. It's the only way that it will work...

Think about Car Insurance. If the only people who were forced to have it were the people who had bad driving records, or who were inexperienced - no one would be able to afford it.. Insurance Companies would be paying out $$$$$ all of the time because the incoming revenue needs to exceed the outgoing insurance payments.

Same with health insurance. In order to be able to sustain itself.. a government wide system needs the revenue of the healthy to balance that of the sick. Just like in car insurance - you don't know when you're going to get into an accident. You don't know when you're going to get struck by lightening.. cancer.. heart attack, etc.

So YES, I think that everyone needs to have a catastrophic baseline that includes low cost annual preventitive checkups.. and can "upgrade" to less expensive additional services if they'd like.

Just my opinion though.

[Zavulon]

76. No. However, they're on their own if they don't.

If someone who doesn't have insurance gets sick and winds up losing everything, they've exercised their right to be stupid and deserve no sympathy. Should everyone renting be forced to buy renter's insurance to make sure we don't have to replace all their possessions? Should singers be forced to insure their vocal cords in order to make sure we don't have to pay them any social benefits?

Right now, there is no law against being stupid, and I don't think there should be. If so-called "single payer," which I'm against, is enacted, then everyone is buying in anyway. However, I'm against any law that forces people to spend their net income on something they don't want.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. But they're not.

Unless you are willing to allow your neighbor's child to die in the street from appendicitis, it's a false premise.

We accept some responsibility for our neighbor's wellbeing, so it is eminently reasonable to expect the neighbor to share it.

[Zavulon]

104. Ah, another "but the children!" argument.

Appendicitis would be treated in an emergency room whether my neighbor had insurance or not, so I fail to see your point about the child dying in the street. I wasn't surprised to hear it, as that seems to be the norm, but I don't see the point. No offense, but these "but the children!" arguments don't sway me. I've heard so many of them as justification for EVERYTHING that I'm just deaf to them now.

I still don't think anyone should be forced to spend their post-tax income in any way they don't want to, sorry. If you do, good for you - because I think you're eventually going to get your way.

[quaker bill]

77. yes, but

people below the poverty line should not have to pay. Any money taken from people this poor has to be replaced with a subsidy such as food stamps or subsidized housing as it is. Taxing them in one place to give the money back in another makes no sense. Don't get me wrong, I am fine with the subsidies under current conditions, but would prefer a living wage law, with taxes only applied on income above the living wage. The same would go for healthcare premiums.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. Yes. Think of it as a tax, if it makes you feel better. n/t

[Romulox]

95. Taxes are paid to governments, not corporations. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. That isn't germane to the op.

The op is pretty confident that he'll never need milk, but if he does, he knows that he can simply milk the neighbor's cow through the fence.

He shouldn't be forced to pay for anyone else's healthcare, but if he needs it, he'll be happy to take their charity.

[Romulox]

99. I think it is germane. Societally shared risks are best handled through taxes.

The efficiency of market based transactions are supposed to be based on precisely the sort of rational decision making embodied in the OP. In other words, the behavior outlined in the OP is said to be a positive behavior in a capitalist analysis.

After all, it's the flip side of the "big pool" argument; insurance companies want to force young people to pay premiums because they're less likely to need services, thus improving profit margins.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. The issue of private insurance is a red herring.

It is meant to distract attention from the bigger point. "Knowing that I will benefit from the system, I don't want to share in any of its burdens"

The better economic lesson is the tragedy of the commons.

It is not a rational decision because it assumes the absence of risk; a delusion. It is a decision based on ignorance.

The big pool argument applies to government too. Why should my taxes pay for military bases, national parks or federal services in your state? Collectivism is the realization that if I expect others to participate in assuring my general welfare, I should consent to promote theirs.

Government taxes you to pay for the national park near me. I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with the paying for the interstate highway that runs through your city, despite the fact that I'll probably never use it.

[flpoljunkie]

85. Yes.

[Shrek]

86. No

If a rational adult weighs the risks and makes an informed decision, it's none of my business if he or she prefers to buy a bigger house instead of health coverage.

Of course such decisions come with a willingness to accept the consequences, whatever they might be. No coming back later for coverage-after-the-fact should a health crisis occur.

[Vidar]

87. No one should be forced to purchase private insurance.

[lindisfarne]

97. With the public option, you could choose the public plan. I shouldn't be forced to subsidize

another's uninsured care, should they choose to opt out when health insurance has been made affordable and subsidies made available for those under a certain income level.

I would be all for denying care to those who fail to buy health insurance that exceeds their demonstrated ability to pay for it (and to require them to carry a document showing that amount, in the case that they ever should need emergency care).

[Mass]

91. If not, it makes healthcare unaffordable for those who need it, so in general, I would say YES.

However, you cannot make it mandatory and let it into the hands of the private insurance business.

[Romulox]

94. A country should carry out mandated spending through taxation. Anything else is corporate welfare.

[izzybeans]

96. Sure, however the taxes they will pay should give them the right

to pursue treatment should circumstances demand it. Though I suppose under certain plans there is no need to opt out, if you are tax paying citizen. You just don't have to opt in. Now if we are stuck with the Massachusetts model then that's entirely different story. I can see this example being a test case for the constitutionality of a mandate if they don't provide exemptions.

[Nipper1959]

105. Duh

Yes!

[and-justice-for-all]

106. It is paid for through taxes....

so there is no opt in or out.

IMO, insurance companies can go have a shit.

[DuaneBidoux]

107. Everyone should be able to opt out, but they must understand they will be turned away at the ER.

There is no other choice in a system like this.