Posted on 10/10/2009 4:30:46 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The health care reform plan working its way through the U.S. Senate now includes a proposal that requires young and healthy Americans to either buy health insurance or pay a $750 annual penalty for not having it.
But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 55% of U.S. voters oppose that proposal. Among voters ages 18 to 29, 29% favor the provision, known as “the individual mandate,” while 57% are opposed to it.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of men oppose the enforced health insurance proposal, compared to 50% of women. African-American voters are nearly twice as likely as whites to support it.
As on many questions related to the contentious health care debate, there is a noticeable partisan divide. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose requiring young and healthy Americans to either buy health insurance or pay an annual penalty. Among Democrats, on the other hand, 46% think the provision is a good idea, while 33% oppose it.
Millions of young people historically have chosen to avoid the cost of health insurance by gambling on their general good health at that age. The individual mandate is intended to push them into buying health insurance.
In a survey in May, 31% of Americans said even those who are young and healthy should be required to buy health coverage. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagreed, saying if someone doesn’t want to buy insurance, they shouldn't have to.
While most voters oppose the “individual mandate” amendment to the health care plan, 59% favor putting a provision in the plan that would prohibit any new taxes, fees or penalties on families who make less than $250,000 a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Our “old” form of healthcare is looking better and better.
Socialism now!
Solialism now!
Socia....what? You mean I have to pay for it? Nevermind then..
could they be the ones that dont want it ...how ironic
African-American voters are nearly twice as likely as whites to support it.
It was supposed to be FREE!
Yup, that's what they think. Boy, are they in for a rude awakening.
Actually, I think this idea has some merit. Before you flame me - hear me out. If I go to a hospital emergency room, they are required by law to treat me for a life threatening condition. If they are required to treat, it is it to much to ask that people be responsible? I don’t think I would favor this proposal - I am just pointing out that requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty is not without merit.-—JM
“Socia....what? You mean I have to pay for it? Nevermind then..”
That’s right. Listen to the socialism advocates squawk when they think someone else gets the benefits of what they’ve worked hard for. When they see the concept played out in real life, they don’t like it so much.
“African-American voters are nearly twice as likely as whites to support it.”
...because these voters do not intend to pay the penalty or to pay for their insurance. They are the permanently “disadvantaged” who sponge off the paychecks of the producers, so their health care will be paid for by others, as it has always been.
It IS without merit.
The government is running it.
They botch and ruin and bankrupt everything.
They take over power until the private sector and individuals are nothing but annexes of the government.
Let these people buy catastrophic insurance or have a health savings account or deal directly with the hospital’s billing dept.
But NO, the government is not going to allow any of those things.
Not to mention, it would be enforced by the IRS taking your money and even then, if you didn’t eventually buy, you could be fined thousands of dollars and PUT IN JAIL.
In other words...
No Health Insurance?
No Cash?
No Service!!
They tell us health care is a ‘right.’ But they want to force us to pay for a right?
[most voters oppose the “individual mandate” amendment to the health care plan, 59% favor putting a provision in the plan that would prohibit any new taxes, fees or penalties on families who make less than $250,000 a year...]
Proving that most voters, who elected Obama, are truly idiots and fools.
I don’t disagree with you - I was only pointing out that this would be a way to deal with the leeches in our society. gitmogrunt sums up the way I feel at #11. I am opposed to it, but I am also sick and tired of paying for folks who want to live off my labor. I have worked damned hard, lived within my means and honored my commitments. My wife and I enjoy a good life. If anyone else wants the “Good Life”, I encourage them to do the same. Don’t take mine - I earned it.-—JM
Health care isn’t a right. For the record, I don’t think it is the role of government to be in the health care business at all. (VA Hospitals excluded) See my reply at 15. That is the point I was trying to get at.-—JM
Government-run insurance will work as well as government-run housing (public housing projects help every community! Just ask Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta...)... government-run hospitals (go to virtually any VA hospital, they’re generally the worst in any city)... government food (remember “government cheese” from the 80’s?)... government-run schools (let’s compare the budgets and results for public schools vs private schools)...
I don’t tbink mandatory insurance is the way to address that problem.
I’d suggest passing laws giving hospitals greater ability to collect from uninsured, emergency room freeloaders. Reasonable payment plan standards should be established and when payments are not made, the hospital should be able to quickly and easily garnish wages and seize assets (including hosues, cars and personal property) of uninsured deadbeats. Also, emergency room bills of the uninsured should survive bankruptcy.
If people knew they would face losing everything, they would get insurance.
I pretty much agree, though I think a middle ground of putting the uninsured on payment plans and seizing their bank accounts, wages, cars, homes and personal property, quickly, if they don’t pay, would be a more merciful way of accomplishing the same goal.
I don’t want people to die because they don’t get insurance, but they should suffer the financial consequences.
Yes, just because they got 'free' care doesn't mean they don't have to pay for it eventually. When people do stupid things that cost other people money, they should pay up.
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.