Why are conservatives against mandatory health insurance?
admin | Apr 18, 2010 | Comments 10
It would seem to go against the thought of personal responsibility. The argument against usually rests on the thought that some people, like young, healthy people, don’t make sick that often and don’t need it. But this is not right- when they have a catastrophic illness or injury, they become a burden on society, specifically the doctors and hospitals that have to take care of them whether they make paid or not. It is terrible enough that most young people already have the thought that shape care ought to be emancipated- even when they have the money to pay for ipods, deceased jewelry, tattoos, etc.
What’s incorrect with requiring at smallest amount a high-deductible plot (it wouldn’t cover small charges, but would protect from massive costs to society and personal bankruptcy), keeping it confidential, giving people a choice of carriers, and instituting community rating and guaranteed issue? If we don’t support a touch like this we are going to end up with single-spender.
High-deductible plans for young healthy people are cheap! When my daughter graduated from college I bought such a policy as a graduation present. There are temporary policies designed to cover a gap for a fleeting period of time- in her case, 4 months- it was about $75 a month. There are also high-deductible long-term policies- I have one for myself (I work section-time) that costs about $129 a month. Unfortunately a lot of people have their priorities screwed up and by the time they realize they need insurance (like when they make sick), it is too late.
I know your points and appreciate those who do voluntarily take care of this responsibility. If everybody did so, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Because I can caution you that aptly now it is physicians and hospitals that are left holding the bag- as well as everybody else that has to pay higher costs to cover the ones who don’t pay.
I don’t see it as a slippery slope to socialized medicine, but as an alternative to it.
I also listen to conservative talk radio and agree with most- but every one of them thinks there’s not a problem here. They’ll say people can just go the emergency room and make taken care of whether they can pay or not. While this is right, it doesn’t make up for the detail the doctor doesn’t make paid! Lets say that anyone can go to an attorney for emergency legal advice whether they can pay or not, and can’t be turned away. Or to a grocery store for emergency food whether they can pay or not, etc. Do you reckon that is honest to the provider of services that doesn’t make compensated for his or her work?
Thank you for sharing your experience, Matthew. Please annotation I said “most”- it is obvious that you are one who has his priorities in order. One theory is that with augmented competition among confidential insurers, people might obtain lower tariff or have more choices of plans. For example, COBRA is limited to the usually high-cost plot one had with the employer- I was offered COBRA and chose a different insurer with a high-deductible, low-cost plot as such a plot was not available through COBRA; it was take it or house it. I also should mention that there is another segment of uninsured out there- those who were insured for many years and lost their insurance, for example, through split, and are older and have medical conditions that make it hard for them to buy insurance. But what to do about people that could buy insurance for themselves but don’t?
Excellent luck in your career!
jlf, I appreciate your opinion. In this case my question was addressed to conservatives because I found this particular point of view at odds with personal responsibility and was seeking opinions from this particular group, as a conservative myself. But I certainly would appreciate opinions from all.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Filed Under: Bankruptcy
Because mandatory government-sponsored shape insurance is only a stepping stone to the ultimate goal of government-run moorland care at massive expense to all taxpayers with inferior care levels.
The current system here in the United States certainly needs some adjustment but our legislature was never intended to care for the people in the ways that liberals have been proposing.
edit:
to your point about legal help or emergency groceries…there are organizations which are not government entities where people with a real need can make the help they need. Every state has one or more Legal Bolster Societies sponsored by their state’s Bar associations and there are countless food pantries sponsored by myriad organizations on top of government-run food bolster programs. A responsible person would, knowing their situation, seek out the aid available to them as opposed to having it spoon-fed to them by some social worker pushing only government options.
I propose that if insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors want to really aid people as well as bring the costs down for the average insurance holder (who do pay their bills), they should start programs very akin to the Legal Bolster Societies. They make a tariff write-off for their efforts and those who are truly in need make the help they require. Enforcing our current immigration laws will also go a long way in reducing the load on many social programs as well as the court system. Illegals have no house in our society and the liberal view that they (illegals) do is a huge section of their entitlement agenda.
Then there is the news tale I heard a few months ago about a US doctor who was offering a plot to his patients without insurance where they could visit his office as much as necessary for a flat fee (about $50) each month. He was told by federal and state government entities that he must stop the practice since this made him an insurance company. This doctor had a reasonable working solution to a common problem only to be stifled by bureaucracy.
you’re missing the point. conservatives believe that gov’t should be for the people, not ordering the people about. thus they don’t feel it’s the responsibility or position of the gov’t to mandate a touch like that.
on the other hand they do believe in healthcare which is why studies suggest that conservatives carry more healthcare than liberals do. they just take responsibility for it themselves instead of sucking off the teat of the working class as the liberals want people to do.
(gov’t healthcare)
How does being against universal shape care go against personal responsibility? Being for it is about as irresponsible as it gets…take Canada as a prime example. Many people have to be placed on waiting lists just for more waiting lists and many have to come to the United States just to make the quicker emergency service that can only be paid for out of pocket with the help of their own insurance policies.
High deductibles for young people? And you base this on your yucky categorization that they buy deceased piercings, tattoos and i pods? After I got out of college the economy stank, and my son was due to be born shortly thereafter. I have paid out of pocket for his shape insurance through my employer for $75 per week. I paid the high premiums. When I was laid off after the NYSE went belly-up back in September, I finished up paying $500 per month for Cobra just for my son. I was forced to preclude myself from coverage just because I couldn’t afford it. What did I do about it? I useful for charity care at all the nearby hospitals and was usual. A few months later, his mother place my son on medicaid. This got rid of the charity care and paid all of his medical expenses. Now, because I am such a “burden on society”, I enlisted in the US Coast Guard and will be shipping out this summer. I am 25 years ancient and I have never had a tattoo, deceased piercing or even an i pod. When I was employed and paying for medical coverage for both myself and my son, I also took out loans and place myself through grad school. I will pay off these loans by precluding myself from the GI Bill in the military. I’m taking responsibility for my debts and I’m not grovelling for a bailout like my liberal counterparts.
If you cannot afford shape insurance and you’re income is below the poverty level, then you can make access to medicaid or charity care. What you are advocating is not the solution of a pragmatist. It is only a solution that will principal to more problems that would have the greatest impact on the midpoint class. The notion of diffusion the wealth (socialism) does not close income gaps amongst the populous. Rather, it polarizes the socioeconomic climate by essentially dissolving the midpoint class into either the rich or poor categories. This happens because the rich will be the only ones capable of being able to afford the extremely high tariff tariff imposed as a upshot of universal shape care and the poor will be the ones who primarily “subsidy” from it, assuming they don’t stay on waiting lists until their shape fails and they expire. The midpoint class will be taxed into submission since they are the largest tariff base in our country. With 40-60% of their income going towards the funding of universal shape care, the midpoint class will eventually degrade and become a section of the poorer classes, while some upper midpoint class families may either survive or become classified as being “rich”.
Without a midpoint class, democracy cannot survive. It is a known detail that you cannot have a constitutional republic or representative democracy without the existence of a midpoint class. So the argument is not whether or not you are a liberal or a conservative. Rather, the argument is whether or not you are liberal or logical, LOL. That being said, talk to a Canadian…he or she will caution you all about the benefits of Universal Shape Care. Take care and excellent luck!
You shouldn’t make sweeping generalizations about “conservatives” any more than you should about “liberals.” Stick to debating policy instead of labeling people.
It is not about shape insurance. It is about freedom of choice. The current administration wants to control every aspect of your life, the banks, businesses, and when or if you can make government shape care. Many people who are on waiting lists for government shape care in other countries come to the U.S. when they want to make better or prompter treatment.
After our government takes over all shape care, what if they simply caution you you are too ancient and not worth medical treatment? Who would we go to then? And who is going to pay for the massive bureaucracy (we all are)?
Because it’s not FAIR, and it treats people like, well, children who can’t be responsible for themselves.
AND, once you “require” a touch, you have to make it purchasable! If you’re undergoing chemotherapy, or have AIDS, and require $250,000 of medical/pharmaceutical treatement a year, who exactly is going to sell you a policy for under $20,000 a month? And if you COULD find one, at even half price, how could you PAY for it??
And, if you initiation excluding those who aren’t young, or who aren’t healthy, aren’t you discriminating against them based on wellness? Keep in mind, America is getting very, very FAT. Over 40% of us are overweight – which automatically makes us NOT HEALTHY. Over 70% of our seniors are seriously overweight – drastically contributing to their shape costs.
Bottom line, most people would rather save the $75 a month, or spend it on cigarettes. The average american, is financially “not bright” – as evidenced by everyone signing ARM ID and buying houses they couldn’t afford, and not understanding what they were agreeing to. People don’t WANT to know about financial tools, like insurance. They look at insurance as “getting my money’s worth”, and $75 a month, for a healthy person, well, they’d rather spend twice that on cable TV – an immediate gratification thing.
Hospitals don’t always TREAT – they’re only required to triage, and treat life threatening emergencies – or a woman in active labor. Then they can stabilize and transfer, or refer to somewhere else.
As long as there aren’t any serious natural consequences for foolish behavior, as long as we parents keep bailing out our kids, people are NOT going to change their financial habits – buying on credit, overspending, not having an emergency fund – and being under or uninsured. You can’t CHANGE that behavior, with a LAW.
Even Massachusetts, that HAS mandatory shape insurance, has EXCEPTIONS!! And the fine for not having it, for low income people, is less than a doctor’s visit.
To back up what mbrcatz said. It would be UNFAIR. What insurance company is going to insure me? I have the boards 4 metastatic colon cancer, and was prognosed in 8/2006 that I had 6-10 months to live. Thankfulness to deity and my oncologist who treats me with the most up-to-date medicines, my life has been extended.
My oncologist told me, (she is from Canada) that if she were treating me in Canada, she would have already given me all she could by government parameter, and I would not have survived. She came to the US to practice medicine so she could give her patients what they need; not what the government allows her to give them.
My chemotherapy treatments are over $22,000 per month, positive a kidney ureter stent replacement every 6 weeks is about $7400, a quarterly PET/CT scan is about $7400, positive doctor’s visits, and medications. To date, my total bills, since 8/2006 are reaching $1,000,000. I’ve had Cyber-knife surgery, a liver resection 40%, and my gall bladder removed. I currently have cancer in both lungs and abdomen. The last PET scan showed that the tumors have been markedly cut-rate, and one in my abdomen has been eradicated. I wouldn’t have had a chance on a Canadian / European-stylishness, government-run shape plot.
I don’t want the government to caution me what kind of treatments I need. I want my oncologist and urologist to caution me that, and to be able to provide them.
~~The only reason I know of why the conservatives are against universal shape care option, is because of the nice lining of their pockets they hear from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. They do not want the status quo disturbed, it’s much to profitable for them.~~
The question is does Universal Shape care work in other countries? Some people say it does and some say it doesn’t.
But do people really want the government to control their shape care and shape care decisions? Democrats say government should not control abortion so why do they want to control shape care?
Anyways, this question really belongs in the politics category.
Your points are valid, but we live in a emancipated country which means you’re emancipated to take risks even if doing so makes no sense. You’re forced to have car insurance because if you crash into somebody elses car then you’re affecting their lives. But, if you want to eat Lofty Macs all day long and have a sensitivity attack without insurance then that’s your business if you want to place your household at risk.
Also, MA has done it and apparently it’s not working so well.