Healthy uninsured people are often making a rational decision in not buying insurance--because of regulation of the insurance policies the healthy and low risk policyholders are forced to subsidize the unheatlhy, and policies are often larded with mandated coverages that the consumer would at the price forgo.
Then the rest of us are harmed by having to pay for what the uninsured individual cannot.
This logic is why the Nanny State is out of control. There is no limit to the degree of government intervention in people's lives that cannot be approved based on cost to society argument; including mandatory medical exams, mandated diet and exercise, prohibition of tobacco and alcohol.
If the uninsured were willing to sign irrevocable statements assuring that they will not request medical treatment that they cannot pay for in advance of treatment, even under pain of lingering, exruciating, painful death, then you'd be right, there would be no harm to us.
Why not respect the private property rights of hospitals and repeal the "emergency" (which has been expanded to include just about anything) mandate to treat without regard to payment. If you can't pay, you might just have to go to a cheap charity hospital.
Dear MRMEAN,
"Why not respect the private property rights of hospitals and repeal the "emergency" (which has been expanded to include just about anything) mandate to treat without regard to payment."
I have already suggested that the law could be written that those who refuse to insure themselves could alternatively sign express waivers to any medical treatment for which they are unable to pay upfront, no matter how painful, deadly, or lingering their health condition.
That would seem a reasonable solution for those who want to avoid an individual mandate.
sitetest