2009: "no one is uninsured by choice". 2010: "OMG! Mandates!!!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

Most people find medical insurance a basic cost of living. Others, a tax.

They always use the example of how expensive it is for the 25 year old self-employed single person making more than the median family income.

25 year olds only think they're invincible.

[liberal N proud]

1. I still believe no one is without insurance by choice

The risk of living without insurance is too great. One hospital visit could wipe you out.

[Javaman]

2. I lived without insurance for years.

I couldn't afford it. Was that my choice?

[liberal N proud]

4. That is what I am saying

No one would be without by choice

[Javaman]

17. The wording in your OP comes off as....

It's people personal choice as to not have health care. Not, if people had a choice they would.

[aikoaiko]

3. I've known people, mostly when we were in our twenties, who chose to not buy insurance

because they were healthy and wanted to spend the on other nonessential things.

[liberal N proud]

5. Healthy and they perceived themselves as invincible

That early 20's group would have to be the only ones who would go without voluntarily, I presume.

[kctim]

6. Yep

[Hello_Kitty]

10. I know people in their twenties who can't afford toilet paper so they steal it from work.

Yet, according to TPTB, they can afford a $60 or $100 insurance premium now.

[WeekendWarrior]

16. Until they got sick or got in an accident

Then I'm betting they went to a free clinic or the emergency room and relied on taxpayer money to help them out. Either way it has to be paid for.

[aikoaiko]

18. Something like that.

Mostly they (we) didn't get very sick. Life is good for most 20 somethings.

In graduate school we had the school clinic that was paid for by our fees and that got us by.

I skipped 2 years of insurance even though it only cost 500 for the year. It wasn't wise, but I chose to do it.

[muffin1]

11. delete n/t

[Romulox]

7. If you really think you're going to lower your insurance premiums on the backs of 25 year olds,

you're delusional.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Mandates are to some Dems what tort reform is Republicans

They honestly believe forcing a few million healthy young people to buy it will magically reduce their premiums to nearly nothing. In a strange coincidence, they believe those same healthy young people are the cause of their current high premiums, due to their constant trips to the ER.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Yep. Let's "Welfare Queen" the uninsured some more.

You forgot to call them deadbeats and free riders too.

[gratuitous]

12. Hard to reconcile those two positions, isn't it?

But the Republicans and their stenographers in the popular media have no problem linking the two together. And while we're not going to lower insurance premiums on the backs of well-to-do 25-year-olds, as some have suggested, it does mean that costs will be more equitably distributed and borne throughout the system. For example, not many 25-year-olds avail themselves of SSI or SSD, but they pay early into a system that could keep them off the streets later in life, and by paying in now, they cover part of the present cost. If we had a single payer health care system, the benefits would be even more obvious, and the costs would be considerably lower.

[shotten99]

13. In all fairness, what do people expect the penalty/mandate

will get you?

I'd wager nothing more than catasrophic coverage with a heft deductible.
You won't go bankrupt from it, but it won't be cheap either.

[LeftyMom]

14. Something about like my mandatory auto insurance: not too expensive, but worthless

[Spike89]

15. Nope, 20-somethings aren't the solution

But you do know that single payer would naturally be just as regressive toward the healthy? The reality is that any insurance is, by definition, a bet that you'll be one of the "lucky" ones who spend less on premiums than they get in benefits. The value of security is a benefit that is often overlooked.

In true government-run single payer, which I would love to see us move to, the money flow really doesn't change significantly. The biggest difference is that private insurers take profits out of the system. In single-payer, rather than sending a check to an insurer, money would be withheld from your paycheck directly. There is no free healthcare. In any system, healthy people who use little or no medical services will be subsidizing those who require more services.