Romney eyes penalties for those lacking insurance

The Boston Globe ^ | 6-22-05 | Scott S. Greenberger

[inquest]

It's not necessary to go so far as to get rid of health insurance, nor is it desirable, because a certain percentage of people are going to incur expenses that they can't pay off, in ways that are impossible to predict.

What really needs to be done (and unfortunately this really is a problem at the federal level primarily) is to get rid of the tax incentives for employers to provide insurance in lieu of salary. Health insurance should have nothing to do with employment. We don't get fire insurance or car insurance, or for that matter food, through our employers, and nor should we get health insurance through them. If it went back to being an individual responsibility, there would be more meaningful competition among insurance companies to tailor their policies for the needs of those individuals, rather than for the convenience of employers.

Another thing is that there should be no government-imposed requirements on what insurers are and are not required to cover. That should be utterly between the insurers and their customers. If I only want to pay for an insurance policy that covers only serious life-threatening or debilitating problems, and with a $7,000 deductible, and if the insurance company is willing to offer it to me, the government should have nothing whatsoever to say about it.

[sitetest]

Dear inquest,

"The state can still write it off from their taxable income without setting up any type of account."

Yes, but that wouldn't apply to any federal tax advantages.


sitetest

[little jeremiah]

I agree with that. I thought that insurance companies offered some kind of "catastrophic" health insurance that was something like what you describe. I was going to look into it.

So it doesn't already exist?

[Final Authority]

Off the top of your head is off the charts. Nothing you wrote convinced me that Romney is a problem to conservatives because he is moderate. Based on your original words you have no answers to my questions and by your own digression you did not answer any of them, so based on my assessment, you are not a very good judge of Mitt's efforts.

So answer these questions:

Do you or are you required to have auto insurance in order to have a registered vehicle on the road to drive?

If you have a home mortgage, are you required to have proof of insurance to cover the value of the loan?

If the above is generally recognized as being right and correct and the responsible thing to do then why not health insurance?

Do you have a "thing" for doctors and professionals in general who are educated and have made us the culture and the society that everybody in the world seeks?

Just a few more questions but I doubt you will effort an answer.

[Dust in the Wind]

" "high deductible" health plan, where the patient pays for his/her first $1,000 of health care per year,"

I'm sorry, but $1,000. a year is NOT a high deductable.

[inquest]

Yes, but that wouldn't apply to any federal tax advantages.

I didn't think there was anything the state could do that would apply to federal tax advantages.

[inquest]

I guess it varies from state to state. I know some states load them up with requirements (maternity, psychiatric care, etc.). Plus, I don't know what exactly is in the federal Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973.

[inquest]

If you have a home mortgage, are you required to have proof of insurance to cover the value of the loan?

Is that a government-imposed requirement? If it is, that should go, too. It should just be between the mortgagor and the mortgagee.

[Final Authority]

How about auto insurance? Should the government get out of that as well?

WRT home owners insurance, if one borrows from a person or a bank and they do not require insurance then it is their own risk, and yours, BTW, as if there was a loss you would still be liable. But since most banks loan based on instruments that are traded by the Federally chartered institutions, and their policies are that they can only trade in insured loans, then it is a de facto government regulation.

The difference with health care is that government has decided years ago that public hospitals must treat everybody, but that everybody is now out of hand. It is time to require personal responsibility and charge the users of the facilities and not overcharge only those who up to now are responsible and buy insurance.

[inquest]

How about auto insurance?

I dealt with that at #19 et seq.

The difference with health care is that government has decided years ago that public hospitals must treat everybody, but that everybody is now out of hand. It is time to require personal responsibility and charge the users of the facilities and not overcharge only those who up to now are responsible and buy insurance.

No, when government gets too far involved in something and screws it up, the solution isn't for it to get even more involved. It needs to get less involved.

[Final Authority]

So you are for throwing out all the bums and poor women and children who show up in the IR for treatment? Or, are you for a reasonable solution? If you are for a solution lay it out in as few words as required so I can get a gist of it. Thanks.

[Final Authority]

Based on 19, are you saying that health care is a right, different from driving an auto? Are you for Hillary care then?

BTW, in New Hampshire there is no mandatory auto insurance as the history shows that drivers in NH have been responsible whether or not they have insurance and government has not had to become involved. There goes your argument that the reason one has to have insurance is because driving is a privilege. The basis for licensing is that but not insurance. States require insurance to force a certain level of financial responsibility on the public.

[inquest]

So you are for throwing out all the bums and poor women and children who show up in the IR for treatment?

The people at issue in this article are those who can afford insurance but can't afford the bill, not people who can't afford insurance at all. Those who can afford insurance should not be subsidized, or shielded in any other way from the consequences of running up bills that they can't afford. More details at #80.

[little jeremiah]

You certainly are in a bad mood today. Are you always like this? I didn't say Romney was a moderate because of this health insurance deal, just based on past things I've read about him, things he's said on other topics. If I'm proved wrong and he turns out to be a real conservative, great.

Health insurance should not be mandatory. But if people can't pay their insurance, because they are too poor, what good will passing a law do? If someone doesn't have insurance, but can afford it, maybe they'd rather just pay cash for medical care.

You aren't addressing the other points I made; instead you are wrongly assuming that I hate doctors. I just know, from many years of personal experience, training in alternative health care, and enough experience in helping others with health, that there are other methods of improving health than what is currently considered standard. Such methods are various, often cheaper, and could lower peoples' costs, and take some of the heat off of doctors and hospitals.

No, I am not a nut case, and this is a lot of bogus stuff out there. But methods like acupuncture, massage, and some others have been practiced for more years than standard medical care, and often have excellent results.

Why, do you have a prejudice against the above?

[inquest]

Based on 19, are you saying that health care is a right, different from driving an auto?

You're completely comparing apples and oranges. Health insurance provides health care; auto insurance does not provide the ability to drive an auto. Get your analogies straight.

States require insurance to force a certain level of financial responsibility on the public.

They do it because the consequences for not having drivers' insurance can "impact" people other than the driver. For details, read the replies to #19 and my replies to them, because otherwise you'll probably end up repeating their arguments.

BTW, in New Hampshire there is no mandatory auto insurance as the history shows that drivers in NH have been responsible whether or not they have insurance and government has not had to become involved.

That works against your argument. If government doesn't need to mandate auto insurance, then it has even less of a need to mandate health insurance.

[Final Authority]

The reason insurance is mandatory for autos is because folks do not take financial responsibility as they are not now in MA and most states with regard to health care.

I did not compare autos to health with respect to insurance, you did in your post originally. Health insurance, BTW, does not provide health care, doctors do and they need to be paid. Insurance is just a means to pay the bill.

If one does not have health insurance, ie, hasn't paid a premium. then ones poor health impacts people other than the patient.

My argument is sound, in NH where people by and large, are responsible, government has not had to step in, but with respect to the health payment crisis in the USA, that is not the case. Large groups of people seek free care believing it is their right to get it. They are irresponsible and it is time for government to cause them to either be responsible or pay in advance.

Answer this. What is your solution to the health care payment crisis in the USA? Is it Hillary care, aka, nationalized medical care? No care for the poor? You tell me. If you can't then you have a problem with either insurers, doctors, or who?

[Final Authority]

If you bothered to read Mitt's provisions of his proposal you will know that he realizes the poorest of us can not afford health insurance but there is indeed already a Massachusetts agency operating doing that now. Romney is targeting those who would rather squander income on a newer SUV or a ski trip and then stick the government (you and me) with the bill after they had to seek medical care. His intent is to force financial responsibility on those who have decided that medical care is a right as portrayed by the liberals.

He allows those who have money to pay cash for medical care but they must have a medical account in place to prove their intentions.

As far as alternative medicine goes, if one is seeking the insurer to pay then as long it is referred by a MD then I am OK with that. If you want to pay out of pocket, I am OK with that too.

What would you propose to do about the medical care payment crisis? Or, do you advocate Hillary care?

This is what it is all about. Mitt intends to be the GOP nominee and he just sucker punched Hillary with respect to health care.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for your detailed explanation. Makes more sense now that I have a better understanding. Certainly folks that can afford health insurance, don't get it, and then stick hospitals with bills they don't pay is just wrong.

I don't know about MASS, but in a lot of border states (and others) illegal aliens get hospital care and rarely if ever pay. Taxpayers are stuck with that, hospitals eat some of it, and raise prices to everyone else.

So it looks to me as though illegals are part of the health care problem.

One reason I don't click a lot of links is I am waaay out in the boondocks and have wretchedly slow dialup. Would take me all day to read every article in its entirety now that just about everything has to be excerpted. Curses.

[Final Authority]

WRT 93, it seems but I might be wrong that the problem you have with Mitt's plan is that if one reads very closely it will eventually cause criminal aliens to actually pay for all of the free care they have gotten over the years. I say it is about time.

What do you mean, can afford insurance but can't afford the bill? If they had insurance the bill may be inconsequential. That is precisely Mitt's intent, to get people to pay into a pool of insured so that the risk of getting sick and the attendant costs, is shared, like all insurance.

You say they shouldn't be subsidized or shielded from the consequences of running up a bill that they can't pay. You did not say you wouldn't throw people out of the IR but if you mean what you said, you must if they can't pay.

I still think you like the status quo because so many get over on the financially responsible and then send their cash back south over the border.

[little jeremiah]

Anything that sucker punches Hiterly is a good thing.