I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?
Regarding rational health care, about 35 years ago several of us approached a major health insurance company with an idea. They gave use their annualy medical payout records on over 1,000 customers. Upon analysis we found that 1 tenth of a customers were responsible for 9 tenths of the cost. We then proposed an experiment wherein the high cost group would be offered the opportunity to receive health counseling and nutritional and dietary education. We figured that some would be willing (the experimental subjects), and some would be uninterested (the controls). The two groups would then be followed up for a year or two to determine if there was a significant reduction in the health care costs of the experimental group. Unfortunately, the insurance company decided not to do the study.
Meanwhile for the next 35 years I followed good dietary and health practices and taught them to my family and others, with very good results. For example, my 40 year old son has NEVER had a cavity. My father who suffered severe spring hay fever for 30 or more years, was cured in one month following my advice and never suffered again during the 20 years to his death at 90. I had a long conversation with a woman social worker about therapeutic nutrition. Two years later she wrote me a note saying she had done my recommended reading and helped about 70 or 80 people.
These are practical low cost methods of dealing with symptoms, but the medical and drug industry establishment will always resist putting them into widespread practice. We could probably afford Obamacare if this approach were followed, but it ain’t likely to happen, McGee.
I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?
Beyond that, unless and until someone defines what level of health care is a right (if any) and what health care is above that benchmark, no national plan can work. Do you have the right to have webbing between your toes removed by a plastic surgeon so you won't be embarrassed in gym class? I've heard of people forcing insurance companies to pay for that sort of surgery, is that a right? In some places, courts have ruled both oversize and undersized breasts to be psychological burdens in order to force insurance companies to pay for reduction and enlargement surgery, will that be covered? Viagra? Ritalin? Sex change surgery? And so on.
There's no way to make good decisions about universal coverage with or without “lifestyle training” (not pejorative, just what folks around here have called the sort of training you mentioned) until after we deregulate health care for about two decades and find out just what economies and efficiencies are really possible.
JMHO
“I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?”
2 other people had address the legal difference between a State and The Federal goverment, as well as the difference between regulating an existing intrastate action(even if you uses some twisted logic to call it interstate) and calling into existence a new action.
I will also point out that Until 1986 hospital rooms could refuses people who did not demonstrate their ability to pay. The Democrats forced thou at the last minute the COBRA bill which made it illegal for a hospital to turn away anyone for not paying. The Effect was naturally a lot of hospitals going into backroom and a massive consolidation of the healthcare provider industry.(Which in-turn led to a consolation of the insurance industry)
The reason we can’t do that is because Congress passed a law in 1986(COBRA standing for: “Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act”) effectively mandating hospitals give out free goods and services. This is also in no small part the reason for the high cost of healthcare.
“I am not quite clear why it is OK to require insurance to drive a car, but not require insurance for guaranteed care in an emergency room. What is the constitutional difference?”
You can’t be serious.
You CHOOSE to buy and drive a car.,,and it is usually one you can afford that fits your life. You know that if you choose to drive a car, it is a “PRIVILEGE,” not a right. You pay for the PRIVILEGE. It is a choice all the way. And if you cannot afford to pay for the PRIVILEGE, you do without the car. No government entity requires you to buy a car whether you want it or not. THAT would be your equivalent, not automobile insurance.
Requiring someone to buy health insurance they can’t or don’t want to afford is like forcing someone to buy a car they don’t want so that everyone else can buy a car.