This mandate is what the Senate is discussing as we speak, forcing a $1,000 fine on those that fail to carry heath insurance. I propose that the word “mandate” will be the catch word for the years ahead, and quite frankly, will be the end of our society as we know it. S

oon we all be mandated to have health insurance, mandated to turn in our weapons, mandated to do whatever the “government” decides is in the best interest of a “just society.”

Sure, you claim “just” comparisons for existing mandates, such as having a driver’s license, marriage license, etc., but there is a difference. IF I want to drive, I need a license, etc. These are not mandates, but rather laws passed by the government if we want to take part in a certain activity.

But future mandates will be different, and much more invasive of our constitutional rights. My question is, will we as American citizens, stand up against these “mandates,” or simply buy into the beliefs that they are necessary for a just society to work.

Yesterday, in church, as we sang “The Truth is Marching On,” I leaned to my wife and whispered… “Soon WILL be the day that we will not be able to sing this song, because “marching on” will be construed by our government to be a subversive act against it….”

What I do not understand is why intelligent individuals like yourselves do not recognize the invasive intrusion into our personal lives by our own government.

SAM RESPONDS:

Sir, I could say the same thing–how could intelligent individuals like you think that a health insurance mandate is the end of our constitutional rights. After all, we are mandated to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and have been for decades, have we not, and no such end of constitutional rights has taken place, correct?

With all due respect, I believe you are getting paranoid and carried away here.

DENNY GETS THE LAST WORD:
With all due respect, your comparison is not valid. As a young person, my wife and I raised 3 children, sometimes on a meager income. When I did have an income, yes, I paid a small percentage of my income into Social Security and Medicare, as required by law. I did not carry health insurance for a period of time when my income was marginal, because I simply could not afford to do so.

If our government “mandates” young families to carry health insurance, that mandate will overide food on the table, or gas for the vehicle they drive to work. If they violate the mandate, they will pay a fine which will further exacerbate their financial condition.

What will happen to those that simply have no income? Will they also be required to carry health insurance? If so, how will they pay for the coverage? If they receive the coverage without paying for it, who WILL pay for the coverage? How can our govenrment enforce such a mandate?

Your caption reads “Medicare For All Wouldn’t Work For Anyone.” I agree completely. As for my paranoid nature, I can only hope that others will begin to recognize the direction our government is taking us before it is too late. What you consider to be paranoia is reality for millions of Americans today.

We are quickly becoming a divided nation, and will soon be a bankrupt nation as well. Thank you for your impartiality to issues such as these.

Insurance is a risk transfer and not an income transfer, but the government wants to make healthcare as much an income transfer as the current taxation system. Take from those who pay the taxes and spread that among those who do not, those who will not, and those who dodge the system, and when the pot becomes bare, simply increase the taxes again and again?

I believe there has to be health care for everyone to some degree. But what are we willing to sacrifice for it and at what cost? Do we want a single-payer Canadian or a British system that has been failing people for years? People seem to believe that just because the service is universal and somehow government controlled, that it’s good!

What about the cap on expenses? Do we want the government to set a cap on the value of your life? Or will we be purchasing an umbrella to lift the cap to a more comfortable level, much as we do with liability coverage now? If you can’t afford the cap, do we pull the plug as sometimes happens regardless of protestation today? (Yes, it does happen when one is discharged from the hospital when the money runs out and a person simply goes home to die)

My opinion is to have the private carriers handle health care and provide tax credits to employers for covering all employees. Make the cost a sliding scale in proportion to income. Perhaps cover the uninsured through a FAIR plan system as suggested above with tax credits for the employed and coverage through unemployment or disability plans for the unemployed.

Those on welfare and the illegal population are already covered with your tax dollars so that’s a moot point.

Medicare is certainly not the answer to the nation’s health care issues, but neither is any government-run program where the bureaucrats get their fingers in the coffers and start rummaging around. On our Ops board was a large sign that that everyone saw just before walking out the door that stated:

“You have no idea how expensive anything can become until the government gets involved”

In my opinion, truer words were never spoken…in this or any other scenario.

I’m happy to pay taxes to support these kinds of services. But making me pay for someone else’s medical services isn’t one of them.

Health care is everybody’s personal business (and parents’ business as respects their young children). Eat right and not too much, exercise adequately, don’t smoke, use alcohol (if at all) in moderation, drive carefully, and the like. Behave! These are the only things that will control the aggregate costs of medical services.

None of these disease-and-injury prevention behaviors generates income for the medical establishment, except maybe the occasional medical checkup, so the medical establishment does not provide health care. It provides medical services for the sick and the injured.

Everybody eventually gets sick or injured, and dies. The issue is, whose money should be spent to put off that day for a while longer? My answer is: one’s own money, either directly or through voluntary participation in a voluntary insurance plan where one’s premium is commensurate with one’s risk of incurring medical service expenses.

Not someone else’s money, either directly or through cross-subsidization in so-called “insurance” schemes that are really coercive income-transfer schemes.

Insurance is not an income-transfer scheme. I am really shocked that you, the Editor in Chief of the major insurance trade journal, could hold the view that insurance is inherently “socialism”!

Insurance certainly gets abused through governmental coercion in a socialistic manner, to redistribute resources systematically from one pre-identifiable group of people to another, but that’s not insurance, that’s forced subsidies. Or more charitably, it’s charity. Insurance is not charity.

I have experienced the cost of health insurance since I am providing health insurance for the agents in my employ. The cost for the agents thru Blue Cross is about $500 per agent. I successfully sold Individual and group insurance during my 30 years with Prudential.

I am now on Medicare (my only choice), and a supplement which is fortunately still provided by Prudential. The new coverages for Health Savings Plan has been of great interest to me. This might be a way to go in the future.

I like the idea of a National Health Fair Plan as described by some of you. In Louisiana the Citizens Fair Plan has worked well. Our citizens have to pay for the coverage–sometimes more that what it costs on the regular market. They pay because it is all that they can buy.

The states attempt to bring in new companies by creating a fund of $100 million to entice some new companies in, has worked well, I now have five new companies seeking business in the state–the “only” companies available to me in South Louisiana. This is my first real good market in years.

A National Health Plan could work, with high deductibles like those offered by the Heath Saving Accounts. The deductibles could be anywhere from $1,000 and up. The plan could be changed as time went on to adjust for costs. It would be a start to insuring the uninsured.

Do uninsured people need this coverage? You bet they do. They call my office often seeking coverage, only to find out they don’t qualify for most companies. It has been so discouraging to me that I decided not to offer individual policies in my agency. Their stories are so sad!

And guess what? Our present agents could offer the National Health Plan and our present system of doctors and hospitals could provide benefits as they do for senior citizens. They appear to be doing a good job now. If we don’t cut out people sellling and furnishing care, a National Health Plan might work.

Many others would say instead that a “just society” is one where you get to keep the fruit of your labors, instead of having the government reach into your pocket to rob you and buy votes for its politicians with the proceeds.

Medical service is just one more service among many that the more productive and lucky can buy more of than the less productive or less lucky. Why should it be different from any other product or service?

Differential access based on economic achievement is just another reason to strive, to push onself to climb up the economic ladder. Take away the motivation to strive by giving people something for nothing, and the whole society will become poorer.

Of course, as you say, “the polls show pretty widespread support for universal health insurance.” That’s because most people think that under such a system, somebody else will pay their medical bills for them. Who would that be?

Sam, you’re a redistibutionist, not a productionist, at heart. That way lies poverty.

SAM RESPONDS:
Mikk! Welcome back! Haven’t heard from you in quite some time. I hope you are well!

Mikk, by your reasoning, why should cities/states/feds tax at all? Let everyone be armed and defend themselves, if they can…no need for police! Your house on fire? Contract with a private company to put it out…Can’t afford it? Tough! The same could be said for tax money that goes to pay for paving roads, assuring clean water, air and food, etc., etc.

Frankly, I am surprised you are not on my side on this. After all, isn’t insurance “socialism,” by spreading the risk among millions? That’s what our tax dollars do in assuring our health and safety, no matter what our individual financial condition.

When government gets involved, science has nothing to do with it. All that matters is politics.

When Medicare came into play, my Mother, now 97-years-old, decided that “free” medical care was wonderful and saw a doctor about three times a week. It made her sick and my father, rest his soul, a prescription drug addict that eventually killed him, but it was free and was their entertainment for their retirement years as was the entertainment for everyone who lived in their retirement community.

Free takes away judgment. No one will care what happens if it is free.

Forgive me, Sam, but I do not want my health care–now that I collect Medicare–controlled by a government employee who could not get a job with an insurance company and who could not define the term “insurance.”

There should be availability for excess coverage through the standard market at competitive pricing. Each coverage holder would have the limit at their disposal to choose the most competitive provider or just choose their favorite medical practitioner: providing choice to the coverage holder will reduce or contain costs.

That’s all I have to contribute. Thanks for the forum to air my thoughts.

What percent of the 50 million choose not to buy health insurance because they are young and healthy? I know plenty.

How will the government charge sufficient premium to cover claims when it is politically unpopular? If a private insurance company were run like FEMA and Medicare, they would be shut down.

SAM RESPONDS: All excellent questions! Should the young and healthy be mandated to have coverage?

Also, as Mr. Stewart remarked, people tend to spend discretionary income on luxury items mainly because we have been programmed to think of health care as a right, rather than just another commodity we need to consider in our day to day budgeting.

Again, the first step in reform is to reform our thinking on health care because whether we get it through a private plan or a goverment one, we’re still going to be paying for it either way. The question will then be, who is paying and what kind of care are we receiving for it?

A National Health Care bill will not resolve the health care issue. Canada and other European countries have already established that fact. If a “universal health care system” will NOT compromise health care quality, then I will support it, but we both know the government is NOT the resource to design such a program.

We must understand that we cannot hold the government responsible for solving all problems that surface due to inequities in our society. Using your words, “that is a fallacy and … is quite ridiculous!”

The bottom line is that the hard working individuals in our society have been plundered of their resources, and there is no more booty available for the government to take for their “just society” programs. We are now the “minority” and it is time to demand our rights as well. Once health care is removed from private enterprise, Medicare and Medicaid WILL collapse.

Thanks again… I enjoy your blog and timely issues.