Democrats Revamping Health Care Bill (Universal is out?)

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#1
This is interesting. From how I understand this bill it appears to be based on Mitt Romney's plan that was implemented in Massachusetts and ended up with every person in Massachusetts having health insurance.

Senate Bill Would Fine People More Than $1,000 for Refusing Health Care Coverage - Political News - FOXNews.com

Instead of having a universal health care system, health care would be treated like liability insurance when it comes to cars. You would be required to buy it.

If you don't buy it (or get it through your employer I'm sure) then you'd be hit with a $1,000 fine. This would dramatically increase the number of people who buy private health insurance, thus lowering the overall price dramatically as well, making it much more affordable for everybody.

I do not like the idea of forcing employers to buy health insurance for their employees though. That decision should be up to them as a business decision.
 
Last edited:

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#2
Ya know, normally I agree with you Hybrix, but I'm going to have to disagree here. While it sounds great, I don't want someone forcing me to have health insurance. Car insurance is a little different as it covers others if you are liable. Health insurance covers no one but you.

What if I lost my job and I had a lapse in health insurance, should I have to have private insurance while I have no income or face fines?

I'm no advocate of socialized medicine, but I am no means a fan of this either.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#3
Well consider the contrary.

A person chooses not to buy health insurance. They get cancer.

Who should pay for it?

This would put the responsibility in their court. The alternative is that the taxpayers pay for it and a very large portion of Americans wouldn't buy their own health insurance.

I'm arguing in favor of an Obama and Democratic proposal ladies and gentlemen. Take note. This is a rarity. :lol:

The thing that's funny about this is that I have a feeling that a lot of Obama supporters will not be in favor of this.
 

Obsessiforge

- Diderot Reborn -
#4
Ya know, normally I agree with you Hybrix, but I'm going to have to disagree here. While it sounds great, I don't want someone forcing me to have health insurance. Car insurance is a little different as it covers others if you are liable. Health insurance covers no one but you.

What if I lost my job and I had a lapse in health insurance, should I have to have private insurance while I have no income or face fines?

I'm no advocate of socialized medicine, but I am no means a fan of this either.
What if in situations like that they'd give you a grace period to get your affairs in order health-care wise. somewhere in the range of...say, 6 months, depending on your situation. if after that period of time you haven't managed to find secure healthcare coverage you'd get fined.
 

NINnerd

Survived a M&G with Trent
#5
My problem with this is: How soon will I get fined for not having health insurance? Because I would be one of the people who'd have to wait for the costs to go down (way down). I'm unemployed now (laid off), and I can't afford health insurance. How much of a grace period would I get to be able to afford it?

Also, I think it should be mandatory to cover kids. But Hybrix brings up a good point about the taxpayers having to pay for those without health insurance who get really sick.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#6
Well I don't know about those things but it would be good to get some more details on how that would work.

I would like to see an opt out "waiver" put into place for people who could afford it but just don't want to. This opt out would also opt them out of medical care though so it would be a trade they have to take. People should have the choice to DQ themselves from healthcare if they want to though.
 

Obsessiforge

- Diderot Reborn -
#7
that doesn't address people who WANT healthcare but CAN'T afford it though. would we be fining people for not having money? that seems a little counter intuitive to me.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#8
that doesn't address people who WANT healthcare but CAN'T afford it though. would we be fining people for not having money? that seems a little counter intuitive to me.
Well the insurance model works on a supply and demand basis. By forcing everybody to get it, the price would go down significantly, thus addressing the issue of it being too expensive.
 

Obsessiforge

- Diderot Reborn -
#9
right, but that'll take a while to equalize, right? and there's still Pro's argument about people without jobs at all; no amount of supply/demand price dropping is going to bring the cost down to zero.
 

Arcadoc

Registered Member
#10
Well consider the contrary.

A person chooses not to buy health insurance. They get cancer.

Who should pay for it?
Sorry, but I'm not willing to make that jump in logic. Some people are more prone to illness than others. If I were a sickly person, then it would behoove me to maintain a sufficient amount of health insurance.
Personally, I'm a fairly healthy person. I don't get sick very often, at least not much more than a small cold once a year, and that's only because I was raised in Illinois and I really hate winter. Otherwise I see my family doctor so rarely that it's difficult to recall what he even looks like.
So should I have to buy insurance at the same rate of someone who makes a habit of going to the emergency room so often that they should get their mail there?
I also don't think it's the government's place to dictate to me what insurance I should buy. I think instead the insurance system itself should be overhauled so that the private citizen could purchase their own policies at an affordable rate.
 
Last edited: