Why Americans Are Required To Pay For Health Insurance >

[KittyWampus]

Because if allowed to opt out, too many people would only pay into the system after becoming ill and there wouldn't be enough funding.

For the record, I support a single-payer system. I'd rather my tax dollars go towards insuring my health and that of my neighbors.

But that's not what we have in this country.

[BlueJazz]

1. Yep...and 60 percent of Americans love getting a Dildo rammed up their ass...

..by a shitty Insurance Company.
Which would be their own business if it didn't affect my life.

[phasma ex machina]

2. Aging boomers stick it to the healthy kids yet again. nt

[subterranean]

3. Every country with universal health care has mandatory participation.

Whether it's tax-funded single payer or premium-funded insurance, everyone pays into the system, for the very reason you stated.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Those countries that have mandatory participation have NO DEDUCTIBLES

and premiums based on REALISTIC income levels.

I will not sign up for any kind of health insurance that charges me thousands of dollars a year and yet requires a $5000 deductible.

A $5000 deductible means that after six years of paying premiums (having them automatically withdrawn from my bank account, the only way they would accept my premiums), I had something expensive happen (a broken elbow from falling on the ice), and the insurance company didn't pay one cent. And it happened when I was at a low point economically. It took me six months to pay off the bills.

Fifteen years ago, I paid less than half of what I was paying in early 2010, had no deductible, and a $10 copay for all office visits and tests.

Don't tell me that medical science has advanced SO MUCH in 15 years that my premiums should more than double (up at least 10% a year every year since I moved to Minneapolis) and my deductible should go from 0 to $5000.

Damned vultures.

[Fumesucker]

9. You really ought to post that as an OP..

The part about no deductibles, I wasn't aware of that specifically and I find it telling in the extreme..

[jannyk]

10. My Family in the UK, & Hubbies in Canada, don't comprehend deductibles!

They have no idea what we are talking about.

[KittyWampus]

12. True, but it's mandatory that you pay into the system one way or other. Deductibles

make my blood boil. Well, so does the insurance scam.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Yes, there is no such things as "free" health care, but

there are also two models for paying for national health care: monthly premiums and general fund allocations.

In countries that have premiums, the fact that the "pool" is the entire country and premiums are based on income, not state of health or age, means that the average person finds them more affordable than here.

The UK has the National Health Service, funded out of the general fund--no individual premiums except whatever the individual's taxes happen to be, with a private option. However, according to some of the British DUers (I specifically asked them in their forum), the existence of the NHS, the knowledge that private patients could always "walk," keeps prices and insurance premiums low.

[KittyWampus]

11. exactly.

[joeybee12]

18. Let's talk Japan, which has what you say, BUT they also mandate that insurers CANNOT DENY

claims...see the difference?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Japan has

1. Premiums based on income, not state of health or age

2. No deductibles, but co-pays that are capped for routine care and waived for certain catastrophic and chronic conditions

3. A public option for those who do not receive insurance through their employers

[Fumesucker]

4. Because when the Republicans take power again they'll strip away the regulations..

Leave the mandate in place..

And then the insurance companies will ....

[Mimosa]

35. But DEMS put in place the type of system where that could happen

Almost as if planned. :(

[leftstreet]

5. "But that's not what we have in this country" Then pay Doctors minimum wage

Let hospitals compete with Budget Motels

Sell Rx drugs on eBay


Stop supporting insurance company ripoffs!

[the redcoat]

6. Lower costs but tax unhealthy choices

You want to drink soda, eat fast food, smoke, and go tanning?

Fine, I won't stop you, but I sure as hell don't want to pay when you get the diabetes, heart attack, and cancer that you knew you had a good chance of getting from all those decisions.

[Taitertots]

15. OK, will you accept taxation for things you actually want to do?

Or is this just some way to spite people for not living like you want them to.

Why don't we tax the single largest expense increase in medicine, Children?

[the redcoat]

20. It has nothing to do with spite.

Taxing choices that negatively effect ourselves, others, insurance costs (and therefore the economy) is a great way to keep different choices/freedoms available while creating accountability and revenue (to hopefully be invested back into communities).

The children example is a false metaphor, and is purposely overly simplified. You're saying the sole reason for taxing something is because it increases costs. No long-term considerations, no cost-benefit analysis, no positive vs negative, nothing.

[derby378]

22. This way lies the dreaded Popcorn Tax

A clear example of government intrusion into the everyday matters of the American public. You may giggle about the name, but it represents the ridiculous extremes that this sort of taxation can result in.

[Taitertots]

23. Who makes that decision? You

There is no objective way to determine this. You can't even see that your judgments are capricious and self centered.

You don't get to decide what other people eat, how they exercise, and many other things. It seems you want to exercise this power through legislation. Are you willing to accept this when it taxes you out of something that you like?

[the redcoat]

25. So we're talking absolute worst-case scenario?

If so, that's a valid concern. It's fair to say if one thing can be taxed, all other things are in danger of being taxed.

I think that's more valid than saying "Are you willing to accept this when it taxes you out of something that you like?" because, yes, I would be. The implication is that taxing certain things lowers overall insurance/taxes, therefore we have more capital to allocate to that which we find important.

Also, the idea that you can just be taxed out of something you like seems to be asserting the idea that everything will have like...a 300% tax rate on it.

[Taitertots]

29. Again, who do you think is going to be the judge?

"The implication is that taxing certain things lowers overall insurance/taxes, therefore we have more capital to allocate to that which we find important."
What makes you the judge of what people determine to be important? You don't think other people find those things important, your whole ideology regarding this is self centered and capricious. We have go without to save YOU money so YOU can buy things YOU want, they have already decided what they want (hint: they buy it).

I'm not obese and I want to be able to eat fast food at a fair market price, not some inflated figure you generated.

[the redcoat]

30. Howabout

When medical professionals agree that not only is there no benefit to the product, but there are only negatives? I'm loving this thought you have that I have a list of all bad things and I alone have chosen how much people will pay for them. All I ever said was I was in favor of raising taxes on things that end up costing other people more than it costs the original person.

I don't know why you think it's about me trying to force my views on others. If I said smoking caused cancer and had no positive results, would that still be self centered and capricious?

Again, I don't understand this "we have to go without" mentality of automatically assuming I'm in favor of everything which has ever caused a death having some absurdly high tax rate. You know what the tax is on tanning in a tanning beds? 10%. Not 400%, not 500%.

[Taitertots]

31. The benefit is that people enjoy it

You don't, so you don't care if it faces capricious taxation. It is the epitome of self centered political ideology.

Why don't we tax people with the ability to pay, instead of concocting a horribly regressive and capricious tax structure?

[the redcoat]

34. So the response is not to tax anything that people enjoy?

Rich people really, REALLY enjoy having a shitload of money. So I guess raising taxes on the top 5% of society with something like 90% of the wealth is out of the question, because, you know, they love having money.

If "people enjoy it" is the only reason not to tax something, then that's kind of like saying you don't have a real reason why it shouldn't be taxed, isn't it?

I sure hope you're not someone who is an advocate of legalizing marijuana to generate tax revenue. I've heard rumors that people enjoy getting high.

[Taitertots]

36. Why don't we just tax people with the means to pay taxes?

Instead of worrying about creating a horribly regressive taxation structure. One where the main goal is to punish people because you are afraid that you will have to spend money.

We should legalize marijuana and not tax it. Lets stop worrying about taking as much as we can from those with the least to give.

"If "people enjoy it" is the only reason not to tax something, then that's kind of like saying you don't have a real reason why it shouldn't be taxed, isn't it?"
I've given you plenty of reason. Our tax structure shouldn't be regressive #1. Our tax structure shouldn't be arbitrary and/or capricious #2.

[the redcoat]

38. "Shouldn't" is not a reason.

If you want to disagree/debate my views, by all means, be my guest. But when debating my personal opinions, be aware of the difference between your own opinions and legitimate reasoning.

An opinion is "taxes shouldn't be regressive." A reason is "regressive taxation has the potential to effect the poor more than the rich."

That being said, I agree that tax structure should not be purely regressive, but I don't see why there can't be a compromise between raising taxes on the top minority and some potentially regressive policies. Increase taxes on the rich for what is essentially redistribution to low income communities and support, and at the same time impose a small tax on those things that are medically proven to be negative, but, um... people "enjoy."

As for arbitrary and capricious, I just think you're throwing around words. Collecting taxes to offset economic expenditures is...the very purpose of collecting taxes. As for capricious, I never advocated taxing everything you can think of without research.

I should be clear, I haven't done research on this, everything I'm saying is speculation. Don't think I have this idea that this will absolutely 100% work. I don't, but I don't think that should stop consideration of it, even if it's just to play devil's advocate. It's not like I'm calling my congressman asking him to support this.

[riderinthestorm]

27. My husband's a professional athlete.

He rides horses for big $$. The same sport that destroyed Christopher Reeves in fact, eventing. It's risky, dangerous and oh so "unhealthy".

But let me make some caveats.....


1. He's 55 years old and still competing at the international levels without a significant injury. Is he still a major risk?

2. He also teaches and trains people to drive horses - specifically to farm and use the land with draft horses to lower the impact on the land. Does he get "credits" because he uses his horse knowledge to also assist 'green technology"? And if so, what kind of tax credit do you propose?

3. If/when peak oil hits, those people who know and understand "old time" ag/farm/large livestock operations will be in even greater demand. Do we get a credit now for that? Even though his high risk skill (eventing) brings in the big bucks that preserves the "old time" skills that WILL be necessary for the future?

4. Lastly, he's never been seriously injured by the horses (knock on wood). BUT he has had Stage IV, Grade IV lymphoma which will probably kill him before any horse accident. As has everyone of his (farming) family, and the guy who "trained" him on his farm - I would stipulate these are all part and parcel of how we are poisoning our environment. While we may be farming organically NOW on our own place, that doesn't mean he wasn't exposed to toxic farm chemicals (duh!) in the past when he grew up and learned in upstate NY.

We eat organically. We have an ideal "farm" lifestyle. He doesn't drink, smoke and has maybe 5 beers in a year.

But he events. He's a professional athlete doing the most rigorous, historically accurate DANGEROUS 3 day old style military test out there. At the highest levels. But he also gives back to his community to preserve skills which we all KNOW will be valuable in the future.

So will you pay for him?

We already pay $15,000 in premiums for him/year. But his next treatment for the lymphoma is stem cell transplant. Millions of dollars there. Will you "authorize" payment"? He's risky for sure. What do you say?


FWIW, I am sick, SICK to death of people deciding who is meritorious in the health care lottery in this country. It is beyond despicable that we are held hostage to this kind of bullshit. Every single human life is worth it because you don't know the ripple effects of how they may affect others. I took a lot of time to post my own story. Will Pitt and others have their own horror stories. I hate them all. Everyone needs health care in the country because we are not capable of sitting in judgment of others.

[girl gone mad]

8. People can still game the system, unless you want the government..

to hike the penalties up to some crazy level which would throw millions more into poverty.

Forcing people to buy private health insurance is scandalous.

[Rex]

13. Because Nixon and Agnew hated the poor and wanted them punished

for existing.

[Romulox]

16. But that's LIBERTARIAN! The truly socialist position is for me to pay for insurance AFTER I make

the claim.

[Taitertots]

17. The way to phrase that is "Why are Americans required to buy for profit Insurance?"

Single payer is the only way to have an effective health care system. Too many people allow free market ideology to confuse them. A market based health care system is detrimental to the vast majority of the people in the country. Tea baggers and other opponents are just choosing ideology over effectiveness.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. We don't have a mandate now and 85% of the country has coverage

Including the majority of young adults.

[riderinthestorm]

26. I'm not sure your percentage is correct (can you provide a link?)

but even if it is, I want 100%.

Does that sound unreasonable to you? I believe every single American deserves health care. And deserves it in a manner that doesn't bankrupt them.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. I agree with that.

I just don't think that forcing people to buy private insurance policies is the way to achieve health care for everyone.

And the HCR law leaves millions out.

Here's your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States

[derby378]

21. And, once again, the insurance companies are firmly in charge

Only this time around, their control over the average American family is mandated by law.

Whether it's UnitedHealthcare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Humana, or whomever - we are all their bitches now.

[depakid]

24. And this attitude is precisely why Americans will never have universal health care

Too many people are obsessed preoccupied by the notion that someone, somewhere might be "getting a freebie" that they "don't deserve" or "didn't pay for."

[IntheSun]

33. They think it's socialist

That and they think it's socialist - the American public has been conditioned to hate anything that hints at socialism to the point where they're willing to put their healthcare in the hands of insurance companies that will deny them coverage for "pre-existing conditions".

[Amonester]

37. A minority is "made" scared of the soviet "mass graves" on the air.

On right-wing radio and on fox nee-use.

Still, a majority want a universal system like the people of Scandinavian countries enjoy.

Link: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/RainDog/29

But the minority above mentioned and their republic party want them (US) to die quickly.

Welcome to DU. :hi: