Mandatory Health Insurance? Pros? Cons?

Question

What is everyone's opinion on Mandatory Health Insurance? What are the pro's and what are the con's?

Answer 1

Yes, it's worked so well for car insurance.--It's insanely expensive and covers nothing.

Answer 2

I have a different take on this. By MANDATORY I am going to assume you meant if everyone was forced by law to have health insurance (Like Massachussetts new plan), rather than having the government pick it up, as all the other posters are assuming.

The problem with the healthcare system is (in no particular order):

'Jackpot' medical malpractice awards. (quite a few states now have some version of tort reform that limits the amount of pain and suffering damages).

Overutilization. Just because you have a $10 doctor visit copay doesn't mean the doctor visit costs that...someone is paying the balance and it is the insurance company. They'll pass it along in the form of higher rates. So if you don't need to go to the doctor, don't.

Medical technology is always getting better and better which costs money. Nothing to do there.

The few are subsidizing the many. Insurance works by everyone contributing to the pot. You don't contribute, you shouldn't get the benefit. Of course, in America that won't happen...so the solution is to to have EVERYONE purchase their own health insurance. Using auto insurance as an example, in the states that require it by law, 70% of people comply. Transposing those numbers to the health insurance market will result in billions of dollars into the system. Enough money to have 'risk pools' in every state for those that are uninsurable. More money into the system = lower insurance rates, higher-paid doctors, healthier citizens. It is a win-win. For those that truly can't afford health insurance, maybe after cutting out their cigarettes and beer, they find that they can. I saw one insurance company where a healthy, 45 yr old man could get a policy for $25 a month ! But for those that truly are indigent, Medicaid is there and CHIP for kids. And again, with the influx of money into the system, there will be more money for other programs.

Answer 3

Pros - theoretically, everyone will have health care. Of course, that's not how it's going to ACTUALLY work, as anyone who understands people and/or insurance, have been telling you. Cons - it's going to be much, much MUCH more expensive than all the estimates you have seen. If you have preexisting conditions, expect it to be more expensive than you can afford - at least four figures. Expect to have major wait times to see doctors - if you can find doctors willing to TAKE any of the new "plan" coverages. As costs increase dramatically for the employers, they will stop offering plans to employees. And, of course, since it's going to be drastically cheaper to pay the fine, than buy the coverage, the real result of this is that there will be many MORE uninsured people. Bottom line - people who are "for" this plan, have blinders on. They aren't looking at REAL costs. They aren't considering what common sense behavior changes the people, the doctors, and the insurance companies will be making. And they haven't looked further than a Michael Moore movie, to see how well it's working in Europe.

Answer 4

If by mandatory, you mean that it is mandated that all employers provide it...
Pros...none.
Cons...a lot of businesses going out of business and a lot of people losing jobs.

If you mean universal or government (ie socialist) health care.
Pros...in the short term everyone gets free medical care.
Cons...socialized health care has ALWAYS made the quality of health care go down, it has seen spiraling costs causing taxes that nobody can afford, it causes lines so long that I sat with a friend when her kid was sick and throwing up...for a measley 9 hours!!!
Another con is that honest, hard working citizens get stuck paying for not only the poor, but the lazy, those who CHOOSE to be drug addicts, illegals.

Socialized medicine NEVER works.

Answer 5

I am very unwilling to give up my very good benefit package in exchange for crappy federal bureaucracy. I have a fairly uncommon health condition, and it took me over fifteen years to get a diagnosis with excellent private insurance. I'm sure that, had the feds been in charge of my health, I'd *still* be looking.

Another con is experimental drugs. My cousin, bless her heart, has MS and has found relief through experimental drugs. How available will experimental drugs be under the feds?

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see people have the coverage they need - but I just don't think the feds should step in.

I also find it extremely ironic - and amusing - that so many of the people who bleat about the govt knowing what they check out at the library have no problem with the feds having full access to their medical records.....I just don't get it.

Answer 6

The pro is simple--it would at least make sure everyone has access to medical care.

The con is also simple--it's not going to fix the problems in the health care system that are causing the rise in people who can't afford health insurance--and it will mean a greatly expanded government role.

There are alternatives--including some very good ones that are labeled "conservative" as well as liberal."

But what are we going to get? Pretty much what Hillary has proposed--which has some good points but also some bad ones. And why? Because, to date, all we have heard from the conservative side are ideological rants and political slogans.

Well--here's a tip: when its a choice between getting health care for kids or loved ones, no one is going to give a rat's a** about the political slogans. We neeed real alternatives--REAL ideas. Not slogans.

Or--reconcile ourselves to that growing government presence in our health care system.

Answer 7

Pros:
Those who've not succeeded in life will get their wish. They'll be given something they've not yet earned. They will have healthcare "insurance." (Pray it's a whole heck of a lot better than Hillary's first atttempt (HMO))

Cons:
The people will be ultimately taxed into the poor house paying for the bad decision making process of those who couldn't aford it before the mandate.
It would undermine the very principle of capitalism by taking from those who've put forth effort and earned and giving it to those who have not.
Which government agency/program/department is a role model of efficiency and fiscal responsibility? Can you just imagine?
How many would quit working so hard and striving to get ahead, knowing that uncle Sammy is going to take it away from you anyway and in return give you less than what you've earned?
Hitler campaigned on a promise of a car in every garage -- introducing the Volkswagen!

Answer 8

I don't care. I have insurance that I pay for myself. It costs me a whopping $1,400 a month..yeah, a month. The only thing that concerns me is that Hillary's mandatory health insurance will cost me even more because I'll be forced...yes, forced by the federal government...to pay the shortfall left by the dead beats out there who can't support themselves and the resulting quality of care will be inferior to what I have now.

Answer 9

Wow, I actually agree with Holy Cow.
No pro's. The con's are so numerous but look at other "mandatory" programs and you'll get the big picture. Government has screwed up every program it's created, let's demand they fix them first.

Answer 10

Pros:none

Cons: Where in the constitution do these idiots think it says the federal government can force you to take a physical or buy health insurance. Stalin would be proud.