Government Mandates of Coverage

There are various health care proposals floating around the Congress right now, but the ones which have the most support have one thing in common: government mandates of insurance coverage. The main health care proposal which is likely to pass (HR 3200) is not really about health care when it all comes down to it. It is about protecting and increasing the profits of the health insurance companies. It's main feature is the "individual mandate" which requires everyone in the United States to buy health insurance. This is a form of universal coverage, but you will be forced to have insurance, and you will have to pay the premiums, deductibles, etc... The health insurance industry as a whole is going to profit immensely, as they will immediately gain at least 30 million new customers. Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is pushing this proposal the hardest, mainly as an alternative to the public option, which is no longer on the table. Baucus, who is a recipient... Read more

Excellent review by abichara; though I disagree that the idea of payouts to insurance companies is the catalyst for this. This is about the government taking power away from individuals- it is about...YES....get your Disagrees ready....socialism. Where in God's name does the federal government of the United States get the authority to MANDATE...force you to purchase health insurance? I have asked this before; yet the cowards answer only with a Disagree. Let's try it again. Any of you Obama lovers care to answer that question?

Mandated insurance laws are a giveaway to the insurance industry. What's seen by wingers as "socialism" is nothing more than business as usual. Obama's "healthcare" proposal is anti-socialism.

A big chunk of the unisured are healthy males who spend money on themselves and forgo health insurance even it employed. They should be added to the insurance pools to lower rates for the rest of us.

If someone doesn't WANT coverage,they're only hurting themselves.

All employers should either be required to offer health insurance to employees through the company or through the government. It should all be in the hands of employers. Those unemployed should still receive healthcare but should be closely monitored to prevent abuse.

Mandated coverage is hideously expensive at least based on past experience in the USA. You can find about a jillion articles on this subject, both pro and con. I find that the pro articles mostly concede that costs will go up with this provision.

only logical

Or as it's called in many other first-world countries - "normalcy."

I'm not a fan of the government mandating anything.