Posted on 06/14/2006 7:57:57 AM PDT by Mike Bates
Millions of upper-income Americans refuse to buy health insurance because they're young and healthy and figure they don't need it.
But now the American Medical Association wants to force them to buy coverage.
At its annual meeting in Chicago on Tuesday, the nation's largest doctors' group called for mandatory health insurance for anyone who makes more than five times the poverty level. That works out to $49,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a family of four.
No one would go to jail for refusing to buy coverage. The AMA instead suggested using the tax code to force compliance. There would be incentives such as tax credits for people who buy insurance and higher taxes for those who don't.
Of the 46 million uninsured Americans, about 5 million, or 11 percent, make more than five times the poverty level. The AMA said these people burden the health care system when they incur catastrophic medical bills they can't afford to pay. The cost gets passed on to those who largely pay for the health care system: taxpayers, employers and the insured.
"Society should not be penalized by the potential costly medical treatments of those uninsured who can afford to purchase health insurance coverage," an AMA report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
I'm with you. So long as people can declare bankruptcy to get out from under hospital bills which would have been covered by a basic catastrophic policy, I believe the rest of society has a right to insist on reasonable precautions. The issue, though, is what is reasonable?
I would support a mandatory catastrophic insurance program for everyone (run privately if possible) and then bargaining for routine healthcare. By bargaining I mean the individual could decide whether to have supplemental insurance to cover routine healthcare and could choose to pay out-of-pocket if they wished. As it is right now, we have catastrophic insurance for all through the bankruptcy laws but the premiums are picked up by all other insurance holders or by taxpayers in general. Incidentally, I would cover an annual physical with the catastrophic insurance so as to detect potential catastrophic illnesses as soon as possible.
I am not a supporter of large government but when large government has already decided that costs for catastrophic illness get picked up by taxpayers or insurance pools, then it is already involved and needs to direct its power to those most responsible for the problem.
Another Hillary supporter, ya'll are coming out in droves today.
"Why should doctors care if rich people pay cash as opposed to through an HMO?"
Cash payers refuse to be bled dry by and bunch of money groveling doctors and demand reduced pricing.
Nah, you need to dial it up a tad. :)
This premise of this article is confusing.Why would a single person who makes $49K per year NOT want health insurance?Someone making that much money surely has assets he(or she)would want to protect in the event of a catastrophic illness.You cannot simply refuse to pay hospital bills.If you can't pay,they'll go after you-with a vengence.
Don't think that sharing the flu with someone doesn't damage them or yourself.
Or you could call me a Mitt Romney supporter. The fact remains that as long as hospitals are required to treat the uninsured, it is in keeping with both conservative principals and market economics to require people to purchase health insurance; otherwise you allow the uninsured to leech off of everyone else. The alternative is to allow people to forgoe personal responsibility and asking society to pick up the tab --- sounds like liberalism to me.
Somehow you missed the entire point of the article. The AMA wants to force people to buy insurance who are affluent enough not to need it. They can pay their own way, but they do not help share the risk of the poorer insured. This plan is simply an attempt to work socialized medicine into the tax law, so the wealthy will have to share the costs of treating the poor. In other words, the AMA wants to force insurance on the very people who don't need it. Get it?
This is America?
"Society should not be penalized by the potential costly medical treatments of those uninsured who can afford to purchase health insurance coverage," an AMA report said.
Then stop giving medical care to the illegal immigrants and make them purchase health insurance.
My response: Maybe it has something to do with people availing themselves of a service for which they're already paying.
The point I was trying to make is that people who pay for something - in this case insurance - are more like to use a physician's services than someone who doesn't.
My response: Maybe it has something to do with people availing themselves of a service for which they're already paying.
The point I was trying to make is that people who pay for something - in this case insurance - are more like to use a physician's services than someone who doesn't.
Oh yeah, that'll happen.
Yes, competition is wonderful.
The only legal change needed here is to allow hospitals and doctors to refuse to treat people who can't pay. They can make their own decisions about who to provide charity care to, and if they're not getting reimbursed by the taxpayers, even the bleeding hearts will quickly learn to leave gangbangers and arrogant working adults to their own devices. Wouldn't take long for a cultural change to set in.
Mitt Romney is just as big a socialist as Hillary is. Both are communists in my opinion.
This is a free country, or at least it used to be. But people like you and the rest of the Liberal Left want to make us all beholdin to the government.
The fact remains that you are a socialist nanny stater and will never be anything else until you underestand the concept of freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.