Posted on 02/03/2008 3:03:16 PM PST by mdittmar
The least-acknowledged fact in the present debate over health care is that many millions of Americans have no good reason to buy health insurance. This is especially true of single young people, above all single men. They rarely become seriously ill, and they know that if they are unlucky enough to be in an accident or contract a serious illness, they will be treated anyway. So, quite properly, they see no reason to pay for health insurance or--the same thing--place a high value on health insurance as an employment benefit.
Pizza Hut learned this a few years ago when it pioneered a program that made health insurance available to its part-time workers at remarkably advantageous rates. To the company's surprise, few of its part-time employees--fewer than ten percent, as I recall--signed up for the plan. Even at subsidized rates, the vast majority of young, single employees had no interest in spending money on health insurance.
Thus, the crocodile tears that are shed over "the uninsured" are by no means entirely genuine. One of the basic purposes of just about anyone's "health care plan" is to find a way to force those millions of young, single people to pay for the health care required by their elders.
Hillary Clinton confronted this issue today on ABC's This Week, and made news with her willingness to garnish wages to force Americans into unwilling participation in her health care system:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms.
Of course, acknowledging that a great many Americans "refuse to buy" health insurance makes a mockery of the Democrats' constant attempts to equate a lack of health insurance with a lack of health care.
The need to force participation by people for whom health insurance is a bad investment is not unique to Hillary Clinton's plan. Any system that tries to achieve universal health insurance will require compulsion. Mitt Romney's web site describes his plan to make private health insurance available to everyone, but doesn't say what he will do about those who make a rational choice not to buy insurance. I believe I've heard Romney say that we have to be prepared to refuse such people treatment at hospital emergency rooms, at least for non-emergencies; if I'm misquoting him, his campaign can correct me and I'll publish an update.
There is an analogy between the compulsory aspects of the candidates' health care proposals and Social Security. A young man or woman would be crazy to participate in the Social Security system if he or she had any choice. If anyone saved 12.4% of his earnings over a lifetime, he would not only have far more money in retirement than Social Security can provide, it would, equally important, be his money, to invest and dispose of as he sees fit. But the government needs young people's money to support their grandparents' retirements, so Social Security is forced upon them. The same thing, in essence, will happen with health care if any comprehensive "reform" plan is adopted.
bump for reference.
Corporate Liberalism.
Government acting as a leg-breaker for the insurance cos. and big HMOs.
So much for being "pro-choice".
Sounds good, once we scrap the inflated prices for doctors that come from medical licensing via government.
If you don’t have health insurance by Dec. 31, 2007, you will lose your personal income tax exemption for 2007. That exemption gives you a Massachusetts tax savings of approximately $219.
In 2008, the cost of the penalty goes up. The fine will equal half of the cost of the lowest-priced Health Connector-certified plan for each month that you don’t have coverage
Waivers will be available for those who cannot afford a plan that meets the rules. Check back for updates.
How is the mandate enforced?
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue will enforce the individual mandate through the tax process.
All government programs have that magic element - coercion. This will be no different and is an indication of the extent to which we are leaving our children and grandchildren with debt.
Hey that’s MY plan. together with tort reform. and don’t forget scrapping the drug part of the FDA.
Look on the bright side: she just wrote the RNC’s best ad.
You may be right, but she’ll have to temporarily modify her position to claim that such mandatory contributions won’t kick in until a certain income level is reached. The lemmings and the sheeple may find that quite reasonable - as long as the “class struggle” thing can be played. Of course, once the whole thing gets its hooks into everything and everybody, the rules will be changed. Just like the income tax, social security, witholding taxes, etc., etc.
I think people would look at the matter differently if Health Savings Accounts were compulsary. You would still own and have control of the money, and it would grow and become part of your total assets.
If you can afford it, but you don’t have it, it means you don’t want it, and this is apparently your choice. Much more removed from the particular circumstances of your life that you are, Hillary! wants to take your money forcibly from you, and spend it to buy something for you you don’t want.
Nice.
Are you forgetting that HSAs expire every year, and you lose what you didn’t spend? (And there are all sorts of hoops involved in spending it, which are a pain in the ass?)
It’s a Catch-22. The only way a gubmint system works is that everyone has it and pays for it — even those who don’t need it. If only those who needed it (sick people) were enrolled, then the system would collapse overnight.
It’s an all or nothing game.
That is an FSA, not an HSA.
What I propose is a lifetime compulsary HSA in which everyone would accumulate money while young to pay for the medical care they will need when older.
I'm not a fan of the compulsary aspect, but I think the solution to healthcare does involve HSAs. People should build up their HSAs, and as their balance increases slowly change their insurance deductible. Eventually people would have a catastrophic insurance plan, and would fund the typical checkups / sick visits out of their HSA. This would eliminate a third-party payer, and thus people would make market-based decisions instead of running to the doc since it only costs $20 out of pocket.
The idea of pro-choice hypocrisy aside, let's not overlook that there are MAJOR constitutional problems with HillaryCare besides the idea that people might be forced to buy it. More specifically, despite her oath to defend the Constitution, Senator Clinton is foolishly trying to carry on the unconstitutional federal spending polities of FDR.
This post (<-click), while addressing a tax related thread, attempts to explain how FDR's disdain for 10th A. state powers created an environment where federal politicians like Senator Clinton wrongly propose federal spending programs based on non-existent federal powers.
(Should anybody feel inclined to comment about the above referenced post, please do so in this thread.)
Again, the people need to wise up to politicians like Hillary who are unthinkingly trying to carry on the unconstitutional federal spending policies established by FDR. The bottom line is that the people need to quit sitting on their hands and petition government leaders like Hillary who are ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
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.