Mandatory health insurance?

44deagle · Post by **44deagle** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:05 am

I agree with you DividendGuy. If this new health care law limits net worth for subsidies I am going to be seriously pissed. I have achieved FI, just building up more passive income for entertainment. Having to purchase a non high deductible plan would put me back a lot.

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:31 am

@44deagle: Why couldnt you just purchase a high deductible plan?

44deagle · Post by **44deagle** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:14 am

@alexOliver Because they are going to limit how high the deductible can be. If it is lowered to say $500, a high deductible plan wont be very high.

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:17 am

Where does the bill limit how high deductibles can be?
Also, you could always just pay the fine.

KevinW · Post by **KevinW** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:30 am

@AlexOliver Yeah, the ability to opt-out of car ownership is a big, key difference.
Also, mechanics tell you real prices up front, which makes it possible to comparison shop, which creates an actual competitive market, which leads to reasonable prices. We don't have any of that in health care.

SF · Post by SF » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:45 pm

> I feel that risking my future on the hopes that

> I don't get cancer or break my neck is my right. Taking away

> that right angers me.
The difference is that by not carrying insurance, you're risking my money, not yours.

csdx · Post by **csdx** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:51 pm

Is the idea more palatable if instead of insurance people compare it to other things like fire/police services (these are things that also essentially amount to a 'tax on living')? As a society, we say that we value police services for everyone, rather than each person paying 'protection money' and getting differing levels of help (likely based on how rich you are). In that vein, I'm less opposed to a single payer system than the current public private mish-mash, but I suppose regulated monopolies aren't necessarily a failure (telecoms and the power grid).
I'm wondering if people who really don't like it don't see their health/healthcare costs as related to that of the general public's? Fire analogy is that if your neighbor is able to put out their fire, your house will likely not also be set ablaze. I think the argument is easy to see in cases like immunization, but less so for cases like cancer or other non-transmissible illness. Though certainly there would be a system-wide benefit if we could get people to adopt healthier lifestyles (eating and exercising).

dragoncar · Post by **dragoncar** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:32 pm

I seriously wonder if all these people saying "I'm young now, why should I help spread the cost?" would still be cool in 40 years when they can only get insurance for 10k a month or whatever astronomical price actually correlates with their actuarial risk. Or if they develop a disease and can't get insurance, but say "oh well, I made the choice not to buy into the system early on, fully aware of that risk, and now instead of asking other people to help me I will simply curl up and die"
I don't doubt that such people exist, although they are probably living in the mountains, generally outside of society. For those who do want to be part of our society, I find it hard to believe all the bluster. And I find arguments that public health is not valuable to the country to be pretty weak. Yes, I'd rather fully fund health care with taxes, but the mandatory subsidized health care is a rational, if unsatisfying, alternative.

MossySF · Post by **MossySF** » Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:03 pm

The new law does have a requirement for coverage where employers will be penalized for not offering enough benefits (ie, offering only plans with high deductibles). However, HSA contributions made by employers will count as benefits. Hence, those doing both HDHP+HSA can continue to do so.

SF · Post by SF » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:41 am

@MossySF
It's also my understanding that HDHP can continue. I thought that the requirements for coverage were to avoid McInsurance. That is, the policies offered by McDonald's with caps of $5000 or $10,000.

DividendGuy · Post by **DividendGuy** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:08 am

@SF
If I come down with a major illness or cancer they'll raid my personal savings and drain me dry before any public assistance is considered. And if I get better I'll be in debt the rest of my life. Of course if I come down with cancer and HAVE health insurance I'll probably still have my personal savings raided and will be drained dry...and also be in debt the rest of my life.
Sigh....

44deagle · Post by **44deagle** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:03 am

@AlexOliver
http://www.americanshareholders.org/oba ... hsas-a2840

AlexOliver · Post by **AlexOliver** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:36 am

I refuse to read any article that has the word "Obamacare" in it. Could you reference something not so biased? Or just summarize?

dragoncar · Post by **dragoncar** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:53 am

AlexOliver: I typed almost the exact same post, then decided I didn't want to rile up the thread, and closed the window without submitting. But now that YOU'VE riled everyone up, I just want to say I agree.
P.S. I did read the article and it was surprisingly well written for someone who uses such a politically charged phrase.