The bolded part is already happening. It has been happening for quite a while, and that is a result of profit driven companies making health care decisions. The rest of your post is just instituting tragedy and leaving people with pre-existing conditions uninsured.
So, let me get this straight, your argument against a health care universal mandate, is auto insurance, which is universally mandated under penalty of law? Facepalm.
Personal auto insurance is not mandated anywhere (I only have liability). Liability auto insurance is only required at the state level, and only if you want to operate a vehicle on a public road.
That's utterly irrelevant to the argument you are making. You have liability, because you are legally required to have it. Because it is universally mandated in order to promote an optimal outcome. That's it.
I thought you were this uber lawyer of some sort? First off, its not universally mandated. Its not even federally mandated. Also, not all states require it. There are a couple states that do not even require liability; They leave it up to the drivers to maintain full comprehensive coverage. If states like Connecticut want to require health insurance, so be it. The Feds should not be requiring it. Let states like California, New York and the such implode on their own massive spending addictions. You won't find me living there. Health Insurance and Auto insurance are two totally different things. The state gov. does not require anyone to maintain comprehensive coverage on their own vehicles. You are required to maintain liability in the event you harm someone else. You can certainly compare and contrast Auto and Health for methods to reduce the premiums and cost.
Getting sick or hurt, then relying on the ER to patch you up even though you can't or choose not to pay your bill is harming someone else by passing those costs on to the taxpayer. It is even more of a big deal when we mandate (as we should) that insurance companies cover anyone who wants coverage, even with a preexisting condition. People could just leech off the system by waiting until they get sick, then buying insurance and then dropping it once they have completed their freeloading.
Le Sigh II. The failure to understand economics is painful here. LOL, and by this I mean you are saying that it's not mandated outside the Milky Way galaxy? First off, you're wrong, in economic terms. States that don't require insurance, and instead force you to put a huge chunk of money aside to pay claims, are effectively requiring you to have self-insurance. Guesss what that amounts to: A universal (or galactic or solar system, since you're a stickler) mandate Yes, and that's what I'm doing when I'm pointing out that a universal mandate, as they do in Auto insurance, is one such method that auto insurance uses to reduce the cost.
I think you misunderstand my post. The universal mandate is supposed to control costs. I simply doubt it will work as intentioned. I do not believe that insurance companies will decrease premiums while no longer being able to exclude pre-existing conditions. I understand that there will be more people paying premiums. There will also be more costs. I am concerned that the people who are screwed now will continue to be screwed and that this legislation does not ensure that these people are protected in any real way. If a health insurance premium is $4500 a year and the tax penalty is $3000 per year, those who can least afford it will be forced to pay the $3000 because $4500 is not realistic for them. There is a better answer out there...one that may not involve the eternal search for increased profits and larger 7 figure bonuses. The status quo would be biund to collapse under its own weight sooner rather than later. The legislation that was passed may create other problems.
I have said all along that this will be decided in the Supreme Court. Whatever decision are made in the lower courts and appellate courts do not really matter.
well thank god we have an impartial, somber court. AMIRITE? <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W-hb-hQXi9s?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W-hb-hQXi9s?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
You clearly are a liberal giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. No self respecting republican would EVER pass up a chance to call somebody else a socialist. A commune is a group of folks that generally know each other with a common interest. People in insurance "pools" have zero common intrest. They join purely for economic reasons of typically have little to no choices of service offerings. (ahem, sounds a bit like SOCIALISM). Sorry, any way you cut it an argument can be made that insurance (as we know it today anyway) is nothing more than a privitized form of socialism. Any mega insurance company has more resources than many countries so it's not an unfair comparison. It's not a commune.
My lack of comprehension of complex problems would qualify me to run for Congress not use silly hyperbolic metaphors. I find it silly that intelligent people actually debate this issue seriously in this forum. I posted something silly on purpose, you replied seriously... it takes a religious themed thread to even get my brain to function in D&D. So SamFisher here goes my most serious opinion: The ruling judge was either politically motivated or idealistically motivated but not thinking in line with current politcal power structures. The healthcare law will be upheld, over the last 100 yrs one thing clearly is established and that is national law will be upheld over state law and the final federal healthcare law will not be overturned by any court. I am confident that until there is further implementation and federal clarification of the healthcare law public opinion will remain purely politically or party swayed. I've been to two large health insurance conferences covering the implementation and affect of the health care reform on businesses and the insurance companies are still working on the fly as to how to interpret some of the requirements. We are receiving email guidance almost weekly from several large insurance carriers as parts of the law are being clarified somewhat by the govt.
I think there needs to be universal coverage or hospitals need to be given the right to turn away emergency patients in life or death situations if they don't have insurance. Our current system has hospitals unable to turn away people who are facing potential death even if they don't have insurance. Because such situations are extremely expensive, all the cost get passed onto people who do have insurance. Basically, everyone has health coverage - that's what no one talks about. It's just that the uninsured only can go to hospitals when their condition is so bad that it would be against the Hippocratic oath not to treat them but that scenario is the most expensive and it's why just spending a night in a Hospital cost $1400 instead of $200, or why that bandage runs you $50 bucks. But since people don't want to require people to have insurance (in other words let the uninsured go in for treatment only when it's expensive) - then we either all pay more, or we demand hospitals not treat dying uninsured people. Of course, that means if you don't have your insurance card on you and you are unconscious - the hospital might have to let you die since you can't prove you are insured.
Coming late to this thread but did want to point that the requirement for hospitals to provide emergency health care isn't just a law but a professional ethical requirement under the Hippocratic Oath. As others have pointed out we essentially have a de facto public option right now under that requirement. You can choose to not have insurance, go to a hospital and get emergency care. If you can't pay it becomes up to the hospital to recoup that from other patients, charity and/or the government. The problem with this of course is that this is a public option paid for in the most wasteful and inefficient manner. What we have now is a system that allows for people to take advantage of it. While I can understand in how forcing people to buy health insurance goes against the absolute idea of liberty but I don't see how liberty is served when doctors are legally and ethically compelled to serve. To put this in Randian / Libertarian terms what we have now and this ruling will continue is where we don't put a gun to people's head to force them to buy insurance yet there is a gun to doctors' head to save those who don't want to buy insurance and can't pay out of their pocket. In this case liberty empowers deadbeats to loot doctors. An insurance mandate is in Randian terms putting a gun to people's head but considering doctors are already compelled to give service it seems to me that short of socializing medicine this is the most practical way of making sure that health care can be paid for. In regard to the argument that health care isn't a public good that ignores that there are many hospitals out there that are public hospitals along with many hospitals that are nonprofits. Health care isn't solely a private for profit business but already in many ways operates as a public good.
