Some of you might not realize that Massachusetts already has mandated health care. So how is it going in Massachusetts?
Jeff Emanuel at The New Ledger has some insight:
“Far from reducing the cost of health insurance, Massachusetts’s individual mandate has driven costs up at twice the average national rate. This was entirely predictable; after all, what can possibly reduce downward pressure on a price more effectively than a legal requirement to purchase it, whatever the cost? According to the Connector, the least expensive price for an insurance policy for a 50 year old non-smoker in 2008 was $3,599 a year ($299.94 per month), with a $2,000 deductible. Next door in Connecticut, that price was just $1,468 a year ($122.36 per month, with a $2,500 deductible) – and Connecticut hadn’t even spent $1.3 billion on controlling and engineering their state’s health care marketplace!”
So this is what we have to look forward to it nationalized health care passes. I can’t wait.
I’ll make 2 points here:
1) Your statistics may be right, but consider another one: 100% of MA residents have health insurance. Less than 100% of CT residents do. Yes, one can look at that as some MA residents paying more than their fair share. But I personally feel that in this case, the ends justify the means. You’re of course free to disagree.
2) Regarding costs of health coverage going up…I will say this: the healthcare plan that I chose covers my medical expenses at 100%, after I’ve met my deductible. I can *absolutely* see how this would encourage a person to make frivolous visits to the doctor (again, after the deductible has been met).
Of course, the flip side of that is that if this weren’t the case…say someone has met their deductible for the year, they’re sick, but still can’t afford their 20% share of the doctor’s bill. They may therefore choose to forgo treatment. Okay, that’s their call…but I’m not going to be too happy if this results in their illness lasting longer than it otherwise would and them therefore passing it on to me.
One thing that’s on my mind with the healthcare debate is this: Americans collectively paying for things is not a new concept. We do this for the military, public schools, libraries, fire departments, roads (admittedly these are *partially* paid for by usage-based taxes on gasoline), courthouses, airports (again partially paid for in a usage-based fashion), dams, police, etc. I know you’re not the official spokesperson for everyone who objects to healthcare, but may I ask: what are your opinions of these things? Do you advocate moving to a system where none of these are funded by income taxes, and they are all paid for on a per-use basis? For example, your taxes go down by $x, but if you ever have to call the cops they’ll charge you $y to help you? Or, example #2, both our taxes go down by $a, but you have to pay $b to put your kids in school?
I guess my point with that last paragraph is: if you don’t mind the status quo with all those other things, why is healthcare different or special? If you do object to the status quo with all those other things…I suppose I would applaud your consistency at least. But on the other hand, if the “cop responding fee” is say $1000, then muggings would skyrocket because nobody’s going to pay the cops $1000 to respond to a mugging in which they lost $20. Etc.
To me, it’s quite simple.
First and foremost, Congress/The President has no power to legislate/pass such a law. The Constitution grants them no such ability.
Second,
I have the right to bear arms but I’m not required to bear them nor am I fined for not bearing them.
I have the right to vote but I’m not required to vote nor am I fined for not voting.
The list could go on ad nauseam.
So why am I fined for not getting healthcare insurance? No other “right” fines a person for failing to use that right. So why does this “right” require me to pay up or go to jail? Because it’s not a right.
Third, everyone that makes money or consumes goods, participates in the cost of airports, police, roads–regardless of income. Even the person making very little still pays. Nowhere is the service provided free to anyone and it is definitely true that I am not required to pay for the services of the person who can’t afford them. Everyone pays taxes (at least at the state level) including sales tax. No one gets out of it. Yet, with healthcare I have to pay for those who are too ill/lazy/tired/sick/unable to pay for it themselves. Ah, another form of welfare! Shall we look at how the current welfare system has done? (it’s a joke.) Shall we look at how welfare has helped so many people get back on their feet? (It hasn’t.) Welfare is a joke. It pays people not to work, has no accountability, and no verification service. We are simply creating another form of welfare. So people get goods and services that they didn’t pay for, others that are responsible and hard-working are now required to bear the burden for those who can’t, and all along we’re told that it won’t affect the economy and it’ll pay for itself. So why create another system that will allow people to shirk responsibility, not work, and put the burden on others?
Further, we have a system called Medicaid which has done just fine (well, actually, it could be much better) for those unable to afford health insurance. I know about five families that have been or are on Medicaid.