Looks like the government might be requiring people to purchase health insurance. Do you support

[RB TexLa]

requiring people to use their health insurance? A required annual check up? Required treatments for certain conditions? What type or types of punishment for not using it?

[DJ13]

1. "requiring people to purchase" NO

"Taxing everyone to provide health care" YES

There IS a difference.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. I completely agree with you

We should all be taxed so that we can all have healthcare, but we shouldn't be required to buy healthcare from insurance comapanies.

[RB TexLa]

12. That isn't what I was asking.

[closeupready]

30. Yes. A progressive tax where the rich pay a higher percentage than the not rich.

That is NOT a radical idea, but it is after 30 years of trickle-down piss-on-the-poor economics.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. I don't support mandatory payments to Stephen Hemsley under any circumstances.

"Manadatory checkups" would be just as ridiculous, but I'm reasonably certain that people would voluntarily get regular checkups if we had a real health care system like the rest of the civilized world.

[rwheeler31]

3. I want a healthy country.

[napi21]

4. It all depends on how much someone would have to pay.

I've heard that anyone who is making under $66,000/yr. will have their premiums subsidized, so if someone who is only making $20,000 or under only has sto pay a small amount out of pocket, I think it's a great idea.

[WCGreen]

6. Most states require auto insurance...

I would agree as long as there is not denial of claims and no life time cap....

[Vincardog]

7. No state requires you to own a car.

[debbierlus]

8. Other. If there was a public option that was open to EVERYONE or single payer

It would change my opinion.

The way the bill is currently written. A huge, big fat NO!!

[liberal_at_heart]

10. exactly

That's how I feel too.

[Kansas Wyatt]

14. +1

This notion, 'it's the best we can do' is pure bullshit.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Requiring sounds harsh, I know.

But by requiring it, the pool of insured is very large, which enables the costs to be spread around, as well as the risks.

I support it.

NO lifetime caps, either.


K&R

[rucky]

11. There are price controls.

But the price controls seem to be relative to costs.

And there are no cost controls.

People call this a boon for the insurance companies - but that's only part of it. With this loophole, the healthcare providers and medical equipment suppliers (and pharma) will be the ones we have to watch out for. Their "costs" include profit - before the middleman takes 15% above that.

And as we learned from the oil companies, if your margins are tight you can still exceed your raw-dollar goals by jacking up the costs. With oil/gas, there are limits to that. People start cutting back.

With mandated insurance, it's illegal for people to cut back.

[Unvanguard]

13. Purchase, yes, so that the costs are well-distributed. Use, no. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Please provide evidence supporting these rightwing lies.

I call bullshit on "requiring people to use their health insurance? A required annual check up? Required treatments for certain conditions? What type or types of punishment for not using it?"

There will be a requirement to have insurance or to pay a tax for not having insurance. The tax is rather minimal.

[RB TexLa]

21. I didn't say it was happening, I asked if people would support doing it.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. You are pushing right wing talking points.

'fess up. You will feel better for having done so.

[RB TexLa]

42. No, I'm asking a question. I speak directly if I wanted to push something I would.

[Naturyl]

16. Absolutely not.

Personal medical decisions should be sacrosanct. This sounds like exactly the kind of government interference the crazy opponents of "socialized medicine" feared, with none of the benefits. Being required to purchase for-profit private insurance *and* being forced to use it (in whatever ways government deems fit)? Sound like the worst possible outcome. The Big Brother supervision of government without the benefits. Nightmare scenario, and if something like this is actually the plan, all I can say is "only in America."

[rwheeler31]

17. We cannot get single payer. We are getting sicker.

We pay more tan any other country. Are you happy now?

[salguine]

18. Hell no. It would be one thing if the coverage were going to be worth a shit. But, like with

every other case, the insurance companies are going to do their damnedest to avoid paying out anyway, so now you're strong-armed into coughing up for insurance that won't be there when you need it. I'd like to sue the Federal government on the grounds that it cannot force someone to purchase a defective product.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Universal coverage means universal coverage. People need to have it, they don't need to use it.

Personally, I'd like to see a SPHC system, but I don't have a lot of patience for healthy 26 yr. olds who would keep the status quo because they don't see the need for health insurance.

[TomCADem]

20. That Is Like Requiring Car Owners To Crash Occasionally...

To get use out of their mandatory car insurance. No!

[dysfunctional press]

25. i think he was going more for preventative care...

check-ups, colonoscopies, etc...

it's cheaper to catch things early on(unless it's something quick and fatal)

[Naturyl]

22. Single-payer or to hell with health care.

Single-payer or I'll just rely on vitamins, herbs, apple cider vinegar, and crossed fingers.

Mandatory insurance and mandatory check-ups? Forget it. How is that not worse than any conservative "socialized medicine" nightmare scenario? Where is the "freedom?" Is government making our health decisions for us acceptable as long as private companies are profiting from it? Is that really what we should conclude from this? If so, this country is beyond insane.

[leftstreet]

23. +1

[Desertrose]

24. +2

Same here....and this country is way beyond insane in so may areas.

[yodoobo]

28. Apple cider isn't going to cure an infection

Its not a perfect law, but its better than what we have now.

If this fails, it'll be another 20 years before we can try again.

Lets get this passed and build on its success.

[L0oniX]

35. +3

[dysfunctional press]

26. how about tax breaks for people who get preventative care...?

check-ups, stress tests, colonoscopies, etc...

that way, you're not 'requiring' it(except for republicans- they can't STAND not taking advantage of a tax break).

[yodoobo]

27. If everyone doesn't participate. It won't work

those who refuse to buy will only serve to deny the civil rights of others who do wish to have healthcare.

Its not a perfect law, but its good one.

[RB TexLa]

29. Did you not read the question?

[Bluenorthwest]

32. By "it won't work" you mean the profits will not be maintained

if there is not universal forced purchase under the color of authority. It is a law that would be criminal in all the nations we see as peers, because it is a crime in most industrial nations to profit from the delivery of basic health care services. It is not a good law. It is mediocre and serves the very interests that create the problems and will continue to create new ones.

[yodoobo]

41. No thats not what I mean

But you know that.

If everyone doesn't participate, then people will be denied care because there won't be enough money to fund it.

And frankly, I don't care if some people I never meet earn a good living administering the plan, if it means that millions will be covered. I don't even care if a few get rich.

A few people getting rich is well worth it if millions get healthcare.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. No to mandated purchase and hell no to the rest of your

'ideas'. I own my body. The end. You want to make me have treatment I do not want? Good luck with that, you will have to use force. Understand? Force. Are you willing to do that? Come over to the house and kidnap me? Tie me down and medicate me? For the sake of profit for Insurance Companies? If you are not, then your question is as moot as moot can be.

[RB TexLa]

33. I plan to do no such thing. Just asking if there are people who support doing that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. No. I don't feel it's right for govn't to force the purchase of anything. n/t

[hughee99]

36. I think the concept of requiring something that people may not be able to afford is great...

the government should also require everyone to own (or at least rent) a house. They could eliminate homeless.

While they're at it, they should mandate that everyone have a high paying job, and wipe out poverty and unemployment at once.

[RB TexLa]

37. Not what I asked.

[hughee99]

38. Then how about this... no.

I don't think the government should be requiring any of it. Some of it's not as bad as others, requiring me to see a doctor is just a hassle if I don't want to see one, but requiring me to receive certain treatment for a given condition is ridiculous. It takes the whole "medical decisions should be made between the patient and doctor instead of some faceless, unaccountable insurance organization" and chucks it out the windows as your treatment would now be mandated by such an organization regardless of what you or your doctor think.

[niyad]

39. what in the hell are you smoking? REQUIRE people to get treatment? punish if they don't?

I don't support requiring people to become thralls to the fucking insurance companies, and I sure as hell don't support dictating to people what health care they are REQUIRED to get.

did we all miss something in those pathetic excuses for so-called "health care reform" bills in the house and senate?