alternative to universal healthcare Got this as a sugestion on my previous question on the subject.What's your opinion?What are the upsides,downsides?Does it make sense?For refrence I included the link to the question.It's perplexed Bob's answer.
Does that sound like a good idea to you and ifso why do I hear no candidate propose this?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al8VpXRwLpW.16kII5hMBPrsy6IX?qid=200706 05220045AA6EbtY
That's why I ask the question.The prerson seems to suggest as others do that most people without health care just choose that because they're young and healthy,just trying to get a feel how accurate that idea is

you know I think the USA has no care for people in the US. we need free health care for everyone in the US like Canada has. That way all people could go to doctors when they needed too unlike myself who has no insurance and cannot afford because we live on fixed income and it takes everything that we get to live from month to month.. No going out to eat, no movies, no nothing.... I have been sick for a while now and cannot even go to a doctor.... so why make mandatory... so of us can't hardly afford to live much less pay insurance..

No, I don't think it's a good idea at all. For one thing, not everyone can afford to get good health insurance. I think that anyone who would suggest such a thing simply doesn't have a clue.

I guess first you'd have to ask what you wanted out of mandating healthcare or having universal healthcare.

If you wanted for everyone to have access to healthcare services, they do. Hospitals treat patients regardless of whether or not they have insurance.

If you wanted everyone to have equal access to healthcare services then that will never happen because the wealthy would always be able to buy services that the poor and middle class can not afford. Also, mandating insurance would likely create fines for those who do not have it (as it does for those found not to have auto insurance but still drive) and those who don't have it are likely those who can't afford it.

If what you wanted was more affordable insurance for everyone (and there was a good argument for that made by perplexed Bob) I would be interested to hear how that could be done. Of course it still wouldn't be affordable for everyone because the poorest would still not be able to afford it. What would we do to cover them?

I guess my biggest reason for saying no is how would we mandate this? How would we know if everyone purchased their own health insurance? I mean we'd catch them if they came to the hospital and didn't have it, but that would just keep those who couldn't afford it from going to the hospital and likely dying or becoming more severely afflicted just to avoid being caught.

no because its too expensive

Only if everyone is able to pay for it.

One difference is that there is a sense of liability in car insurance. In health insurance you are liable only to yourself.

No. First of all I disagree with mandatory car insurance. Insurance is to protect you from disaster. Of course if you have nothing to loose say you are a student and you drive a clunker why do you need insurance? What are you protecting? This is a ploy for the insurance companies. By making health insurance mandatory is implying that everyone could afford it and if you can't then what. This sounds like a pretty idea in principal but not practical.

He's confused, we paid more in car insurance in case the other driver was at fault, it was not required then and is not now, because the option still exists. 1 out of 4 drivers is not insured. Insurance companies are about making money. Do you really think they will lower premiums just because we have to buy? I don't have health ins, and I don't want others to pay for it, or work for a company that was forced to get it. Forcing us to have insurance 'is' Unconstitutional.

Probably not.

Auto insurance is required, because it protects others that you might injure.

The problem with mandatory health insurance is that many people simply cannot afford the premiums. Many live paycheck to paycheck, and have a hard time keeping a roof over their head, and food in the refrigerator. Family coverage (depending on health history), would cost between $500 and $1000 per month. Assuming a person is employed full time (160 hours per month), it would cost $3-$6 per hour. And, these would be after-tax dollars. In other words, assuming the person makes $9 per hour, pays only FICA and 5% combined state and federal income tax, that would leave between $300 and $800 per month for food, utilities, house payment/rent, car insurance and bills.

Even if you doubled the person's income to $18/hour, this would leave only $1,000 - $1,500 per month for house payments/rent, plus food, plus utilities, plus gasoline, etc.

Further, insurance carriers can annually raise premiums based on experience. For example, if you get a serious illness or injury, they can double or triple the premiums. In the case of auto insurance, you can choose to simply not drive (take mass transit, etc.). Under your proposal, you have no such option.

Universal healthcare, however, takes your proposal (mandatory health insurance) a step further. Everyone is in a pool for risk purposes (so the serious illness of one is already considered), and everyone pays a premium (in this case, probably though increased taxes, which is simply a payment for the services.

Wait, you say, the government administer healthcare -- with government waste?

Administrative costs (including advertising) for the health care industry is over 28% of the cost of insurance. For medicare, administrative costs are less than 3%. There would be a substantial reduction through universal health care.

And remember, in point of fact, we already pay for the uninsured. The uninsured disproportionately use emergency rooms as their primary physician, and these are billed (but usually not paid), resulting in higher charges (passed on) to those who DO pay (the insured and self-insured).

Mandatory health care would not work. But universal health care probably would.

As a further aside, the "brain drain" complained of would simply not happen if the US went to universal health care. Right now, the US is the only major industrialized country t hat does not provide universal health care. Thus, doctors from Canada, Europe, etc. flee those country to work here, where they can make more money. If the US did go to Universal Health Care, the physicians would not leave in droves because -- there is no major industrialized country to serve as a destination offering substantially greater wages.

No, just look at how many people drive without insurance. It's the people who have insurance who pay for the people who don't. The same goes with healthcare. The one's with healthcare pay for the one's who don't have healthcare. Bad idea.