Well, it seems I end up discussing the merits of some aspects of the current plan after all :-)
First, there are a fair bit of major question marks about it, specifically what, how much, and from where. That being said, I do believe "someone ought to do something."
The problem with people who elect not to buy insurance is that they also make us pay for their care -- someone has to make up all the ER expenses that go to treat the uninsured. Actually, this also extends to underinsured; once the insurance decides to drop you or not cover something expensive you need, unless the cost can be recovered from your assets and future earnings, the care provider ends up absorbing the cost and passing it on.
Requiring everyone to carry insurance reduces the actuarial risk on insurance providers, allowing them to theoretically offer cheaper, better insurance to everyone since the risk is pooled better -- at the price of everyone being forced to buy a product, and thereby infringing on freedom (see car insurance). So again, you're hosed either way. Either people can be irresponsible and hurt others by their irresponsibility, or the government can (try) to force them to be responsible. Someone is always going to hate one extreme or the other. (I'm not going to go into the whole issue of "what kind of insurance" because that to me looks like a really nasty devil hiding in the details and this whole issue spirals into the realm of PhD dissertations.)
no subject
First, there are a fair bit of major question marks about it, specifically what, how much, and from where. That being said, I do believe "someone ought to do something."
The problem with people who elect not to buy insurance is that they also make us pay for their care -- someone has to make up all the ER expenses that go to treat the uninsured. Actually, this also extends to underinsured; once the insurance decides to drop you or not cover something expensive you need, unless the cost can be recovered from your assets and future earnings, the care provider ends up absorbing the cost and passing it on.
Requiring everyone to carry insurance reduces the actuarial risk on insurance providers, allowing them to theoretically offer cheaper, better insurance to everyone since the risk is pooled better -- at the price of everyone being forced to buy a product, and thereby infringing on freedom (see car insurance). So again, you're hosed either way. Either people can be irresponsible and hurt others by their irresponsibility, or the government can (try) to force them to be responsible. Someone is always going to hate one extreme or the other. (I'm not going to go into the whole issue of "what kind of insurance" because that to me looks like a really nasty devil hiding in the details and this whole issue spirals into the realm of PhD dissertations.)