Posted on 07/01/2007 8:56:46 AM PDT by gpk9
Should Insurance Be Mandatory? By Laurie McGinley
With the debate over the nation's health-care system heating up -- and getting stoked by Michael Moore's "Sicko" -- a contentious question has emerged: Should everyone be required to have health insurance, as drivers are compelled to have auto insurance?
Massachusetts's answer: yes. Under the Bay State's sweeping health-overhaul law, pressed by Republican former Gov. Mitt Romney, most adults are required to have health insurance by tomorrow. While Massachusetts was the first state to pose an "individual mandate," it's unlikely to be the last.
In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing an individual-insurance requirement as part of a health-care overhaul; ...
Mass. new law requring people to buy medical insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FRAUDULENT, and a BLATENT ABUSE of legislative authority!
NO state constitution gives it's legislature authority to require a citizen to buy ANYTHING!
No state constitution gives it's legislature authority to require a citizen to show "financial responsibility" of ANY kind!
I could write a BOOK on this subject, but the basic principle is SIMPLE!
State legislatures have ONLY the authority given to them by their state constitution!
They DON'T have unlimited authority to make any and every law they wish!
MANY laws enacted by state legislatures are unconstitituional on their face! They are illegal before the INK EVEN DRIES! Their constitution simply does not confer such authority on the legislature.
The Massachusettes Supreme Court should PROMPTLY smack this law down onto the legislative scrap heap where it belongs... along with delivering a STINGING rebuke to the legislatute for exceeding their constitutional authority.
If the Mass. Supreme Court won't do it, a FEDERAL JUDGE SHOULD!
No! Insurance is the problem not the solution.
>>>Should Insurance Be Mandatory?
NO!
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1045.htm
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
• The Medicare billed signed by the President today creates new Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to help individuals save for qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.
• Beginning on January 1, 2004, individuals under the age of 65 are eligible to contribute to an HSA if they have a qualified health plan.
o For self-only policies, a qualified health plan must have a minimum deductible of $1,000 with a $5,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses (indexed annually).
o For family policies, a qualified health plan must have a minimum deductible of $2,000 with a $10,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses (indexed annually).
• Preventive care services, as well as coverage for accidents, disability, dental care, vision care, and long-term care is not subject to the deductible.
• Individuals may contribute up to 100% of the health plan deductible. The maximum annual contribution is $2,600 for self-only policies and $5,150 for family policies (indexed annually).
• Individuals age 55 – 65 may make additional “catch-up” contributions of up to $500 in 2004, increasing to $1,000 annually in 2009 and thereafter. A married couple can make two catch-up contributions as long as both spouses are at least 55.
• Contributions may be made by individuals, family members and employers and are tax deductible, even if the account beneficiary does not itemize. Employer contributions are made on a pre-tax basis and are not taxable to the employee. Employers will be allowed to offer HSAs through a cafeteria plan.
• Investment earnings accrue tax-free.
• HSA distributions are tax-free if they are used to pay for qualified medical expenses. Qualified expenses include prescription drugs, qualified long-term care services and long-term care insurance, COBRA coverage, Medicare expenses (but not Medigap), and retiree health expenses for individuals age 65 and older.
• Distributions made for any other purpose are subject to income tax and a 10% penalty. The 10% penalty is waived in the case of death or disability. The 10% penalty is also waived for distributions made by individuals age 65 and older.
• Upon death, HSA ownership may transfer to the spouse on a tax-free basis.
bump for emphasis
As long as I don’t care how anyone pays for their medical expenses as long as I don’t have to foot the bill for them.
Another example of Big Brother’s incursion into our private lives. Inch by inch by inch. Slowly, your freedom is being sucked up by the likes of Swimmer Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest. Wake up America before you find yourself enslaved by political elitists.
The way it stands right now, even if someone doesn’t have health insurance or the ability to pay, the hospital ER’s cannot turn them away. If you make it compulsory on the ER’s to see these patients, you need to make it compulsory on the patients to have a method to pay.
The people who do pay, pay twice. Once for themselves, and once for the uninsured. That’s crap. And it’s precisely why I support mandatory health insurance. Either that, or remove the requirement on the ER’s to treat everybody...and just let them rot in the streets so that Michael Moore can propagandize them.
What about expensive cars? Uncle Sam gonna order me to go out and buy a Maserati next week??
I mean, I sat there and listened to those debates in 93 for some time and never heard anything intelligent coming from anybody, left, right, or whatever. The big problem with medicine in this country is the cost, and not how we go about paying that cost, as if it were a given. For that matter, the most major thing you could do to drive those costs down is eliminate the BS lawsuits, but that would also destroy the monetary basis of the demokkkrat party which is probably why it doesn’t happen.
If you want to solve a problem, all you have to do is pass a law. It is so easy!
this is what I have been looking for. how do we set these up?
some guy yelled at me on one of these thread because as an independent contractor we do not have insurance. even with a little help from the company my husband works for it still costs more than our auto and home insurance combined and will not cover the doctor we want to use.
You are required at the point of a gun to buy your local school teachers, your roads, your police, etc. What's the difference?
Don't get me wrong here I am against universal health care and any form of it, the fact is however, we are at the bottom of the slippery slope already. When a man can get kicked out of his home for not paying tribute to the state, we are thralls of the state.
It seems that FDA regulations require extensive testing on drugs and like products before being released for consumption by the general public. Likewise, the idea of government health care should be subjected to years of extensive research and actual testing, first on animals, then later on test groups of humans, before being allowed to be marketed. So, I challenge Bloato Moore and Soros and all the others of the top economic tier of the US to pool their obscene capitalism-derived fortunes and establish a test medical center that has all the features of their visionary health care: All care all the time to all people, no lines, top quality treatment at least the equal of the care that Hillary gets from her government doctors, nobody turned down, cures for everyone thanks to embryonic stem cell research, unlimited budget open to audit by the public, for a period of ten years, or until it collapses, whichever comes sooner. Any takers? Put your money where your mouths are. If it’s so good, prove it.
A tax is simply mandatory insurance that pays for police and military protection, access to the court system, emergency loss of income protection, etc.
You being a mere peasant / serf of the glorious State of Mass, leader in the fight for gay marriage should be grateful you have the nanny state taking care of all you needs even if you don't want them.
How dare you think the state has nothing but benign benevolence for you.
Besides that piece of paper called the State Constitution is really only a quasi guideline for your Masters / Kings.
Their unlimited authority supersedes that mere piece of paper, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.