Politicians shouldn’t force grown-ups to buy insurance
This letter has not been edited
Brian T. Schwartz, Boulder
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
In “Health-care reform for grown-ups” (April 6), the Rocky’s editorial board says “it can live with” mandatory insurance proposed in Senate Bill 217 if “value benefit plans are indeed viable and available at modest costs.” But real grown-ups can’t “live with"politicians treating them like children.
Attempting to justify this nanny-state proposal, the editors perpetuate the fallacy that the “cost-shift from the uninsured” makes insurance so expensive: Such “uncompensated care totals $600 million ... according to the blue ribbon commission.” Wrong.
In a January 26 Speakout printed here, Commission member Linda Gorman showed that the Commission’s figure was much less, and that the maximum annual cost-shift was “about $85 per insured individual.” How muchwill SB 217 cost taxpayers?
Maybe mothers can force their four-year-olds to eat their vegetables, but politicians shouldn’t force grown-ups to buy insurance. As grown-ups, we have the individual right to make that choice ourselves.
Comments
Posted by observer on April 16, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Brian:
That's really dumb, even going too far with this liberatarian crap. The uninsured "grown-ups" are costing the rest of us money every time the get sick and have to be taken care of by a doctor or a hospital.
Posted by SheikYurBooty on April 16, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What's next - they shouldn't force us to buy police protection, highways, schools, national defencse...?? The list goes on and on. We all wind up paying for the uninsured, so it's about time they started paying their own way.
Posted by BrianSchwartz on April 16, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
observer:
Can you answer my question in the third paragraph? "The maximum annual cost-shift was “about $85 per insured individual.” How much will SB 217 cost taxpayers?"
A Feb 1 Rocky article said Hagedorn's bill would "cost the state an additional $1.23 billion per year." As I wrote in "Compulsory Insurance is Collective Punishment," (www.tinyurl.com/6hvcbj) That's around $400 per insured person per year.
Is it "really dumb" to charge the insured $400 to save them $85?
And regardless of cost comparisons, this a perversion of justice.
In the Collective Punishment article, I continue:
holding people "responsible" would mean punishing freeloaders themselves and allowing providers to prevent freeloading. Compulsory insurance is the opposite: it forces the innocent to buy insurance determined by political interests, rather than their own needs. That's collective punishment.
What if we applied the Commission's rationale to freeloaders who leave restaurants without paying the bill? This certainly increases prices, but forcing all citizens to buy "diner's insurance" punishes the innocent.
"Observer" are you for "diner's insurance"? And if your points are so insightful, then when not post your real name with your comments?
Posted by NotChasB on April 16, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Leftwing socialists like Hillary Clinton like to force their socialism on people since they know what is best for us. Obama is not the only elitist in that race for the White House. Of course well healed Democrats like Bill and Hillary or Obama will not be forced to buy that insurance plan. Only the best for our Elitist leftwingers.
Posted by BrianSchwartz on April 16, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"SheikYurBooty" writes: "What's next - they shouldn't force us to buy police protection, highways, schools, national defencse...?? The list goes on and on. We all wind up paying for the uninsured, so it's about time they started paying their own way."
Look up "public goods" on Wikipedia. National defense is a typical public good, as if some people in a geographic area purchase the product, it's difficult to exclude others in the same area from benefiting from it. Food is a private good. The person who benefits from it is the one eating it. So is education.
It's a fallacy to say that "we're all better off with an educated populace" as a justification for government forcing us all to pay for the education of others. The same argument can be made for food, clothing, and haircuts. "What, you want to live in a society where people starve, walk around naked, and can't see because their hair is covering their faces?"
Posted by rpmcmurphy on April 16, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One of the ways the commies were gonna help shift this nation from capitalism to socialism was to force everyone to buy health insurance, and make it so expensive that most people were unable to buy the required insurance, and the neccessities of life at the same time. Sounds like they are working their plan here in Colorado.
Posted by observer on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Brian:
I'm apparently not being clear. A person who doesn't buy insurance because they have always been healthy and because it is a little too high for them may some day develop severe headaches. They suddenly need an MRI because a brain tumor has to be ruled out. The MRI costs about $2,000 which is beyond that person's ability to pay. The person is not a "free loader" just because they accepted the service without any ability to pay (the alternative can be death). how do you "punish" a person that has a brain tumor which might require months of treatment? Just letting them die is not an option in America. In reality they will get the full treatment and we all will have to foot the bill through higher medical costs or insurance. I don't know what this $85.00 is all about, but I don't believe the research (sounds too self-serving).
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.