Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (134209)	3/22/2010 2:19:20 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 542957

There will be less liberty to "free ride" on society by carrying no health insurance then expecting the public purse to take care of you when you break your leg on the ski slopes or get stricken by something horrible like leukemia at a young age when you were "perfectly healthy".

To: Sam who wrote (134209)	3/23/2010 10:04:49 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542957

Off the top of my head on the less liberty side: Choice of providers. Choice in type, content, and price of policy. Available treatments and other health products. And higher taxes, as Mankiw mentioned. Someone who doesn't want insurance will be "forced" to get it or pay a fine (doesn't auto insurance work like this in most if not all states?) This comparison is made frequently. The only auto insurance you are required to carry is liability, which protects others. You aren't required to insure against damage to your own car. If the auto insurance logic were applied to health coverage, you might reasonably be required to carry insurance for vaccinations against communicable diseases (and to actually get them)... <g> 2. Insurance companies will be "forced" to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and they will be "coerced" into not dropping people who get sick. [However, it isn't clear to me that their rates will be capped--the giant gift to insurance companies.]</i. I don't think this one belongs on the list. This isn't about individual liberty. Unless of course you're among those who think that liberty extends to corporations as the Supreme Court claimed for freedom of speech. I suspect you're not. <g>

To: Sam who wrote (134209)	3/23/2010 9:21:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542957

1. Someone who doesn't want insurance will be "forced" to get it or pay a fine (doesn't auto insurance work like this in most if not all states?) No. You usually have to insured your car to register it, but there is no legal requirement to register a car. (Also not quite as much on your point, but still significant, the requirement for insurance is only for liability, to cover damage to others, not to cover your own repairs or medical costs from car crashes. ) Insurance companies will be "forced" to cover people with pre-existing conditions Which is a loss to liberty, and if the rates are capped perhaps a removal of the industry, or something that is going to turn it in to something that only survives on government subsidies, while if the rates are not capped, they can effectively deny people by charging them more than they can afford. More liberty: 1. People who have developed an illness or who have a dependent child who is sick won't be forced to stay in a particular job in order to get or remain insured. That can be a major practical benefit, but it isn't really a liberty issue. Liberty is freedom from someone imposing a restraint on you, not freedom from your situation making other choices foolish ones.