# Who's NOT buying health insurance and why is the right so aggressively defending them? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616 "2011-09-08T14:36:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/81 "2011-09-09T02:29:51Z")
Who is not buying health insurance? People who can not afford it. It is very expensive. When you are out of work, it is not affordable. If you are working for 8 or 10 bucks an hour, you can not afford it. Everyone would like to have health insurance. It gives some peace of mind. Even though your health insurance will cheat you out of paying if they can figure a way. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/82 "2011-09-09T02:42:46Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > At the time? Walked away. As I stated, I had no assets. Bankruptcy court at the time would have simply wiped the bill, and left me with a 7 year hit to my credit rating. > > Now, I am posting all of this detail because the OP, in part, asked about who does not buy insurance. I am answering that one segment is people who have nothing to lose in bankruptcy court and who do not need ongoing health care aside from catastrophic. Your answer makes sense. People will act according to their best interests. This is why the govt needs to step in and make sure there is one huge risk pool with all citizens in it. That way the 999 healthy 20-year-olds can help pay for the 1 that gets really sick. I checked an online insurance quote page and a 20-year-old can get a $10000 deductible policy for ~$50/month. It’s not free but it wouldn’t break the bank either. But what 20-year-old is going to pay that voluntarily? And BTW, if you get seriously injured without insurance the ER will only treat your immediate injuries. They will save your life, but it will be up to you to pay for your rehab and associated costs. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/83 "2011-09-09T02:47:07Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > The auto insurance analogy is flawed. > > 1 - The FEDERAL government does not require auto insurance. > 2 - I do NOT have to buy auto insurance for cars I keep on my property (I don’t ensure a ranch truck of mine - not worth it, and it never leaves the ranch). > 3 - I do not have to buy insurance for myself, I only have to have insurance to cover the costs of someone ELSE in case I am liable. > 4 - I can forego insurance and just be bonded Another reason the auto insurance analogy is incorrect is this: Suppose you get into an accident, and to make matters worse, it’s your fault. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll face heavy penalties and may be civilly liable for any damages to the other party. But no body shop, repair shop, automobile dealer, or any other entity is _required_ to make the injured party whole. By contrast, if you can’t afford health insurance and find yourself critically ill, the ER _is_ obligated to receive and treat you. A hospital admission may ensue, and eventually the hospital will send you bills for five-figure sums that you have no hope of ever being able to repay. And I don’t think the hospital honestly expects you to, but putting a number on it is the beginning of their process of finding some other way of being at least partially reimbursed. In essence, we already have universal health care, albeit very unevenly and haphazardly distributed. What we don’t have is a fair and efficient system for seeing that the providers get paid. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/84 "2011-09-09T06:10:48Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > The insurance company wants to cover their ass so they will recommend the treatments. If they say don’t take him in and then he gets sick, they’re open to a lawsuit. > > When you went to the hospital, did you call around to find the most economical hospital? Or try calling smaller clinics to get their prices? Probably not. You probably went to the closest hospital and didn’t consider price until the bill came. And since your co-pay is $300, why should you go to a more economical hospital? Everything after $300 is free, so go to the best hospital you can. Guess what? You’re wrong. All of the urgent care facilities in my area were closed being close to midnight. Oh and you might be interested in knowing that a lot of doctor offices are not open at that time so my choices were fairly limited. The only things open were the two hospital emergency rooms. You also have to understand that I was pretty sure he would only need a dentist (none open at that time) and given some tylanol it could have waited until Monday but the nurse practitioner (you know, the person with more medical knowledge than me) was made it seem like it was just this side of life-or-death if he didn’t see someone RIGHT NOW! And the issue is not the $300. The issue is that I took my son to a hospital emergency room based on the insurance company’s recommendation that was completely idiotic and then they weasel out of paying the bill since it was not “life-threatening” and that it was my fault that I took their advice. So no, I didn’t choose the best available I took: 1. The only option available 2. The advice given to me by a medical professional 3. The advice of the insurance company which theoretically would have provided care beyond that which I thought necessary ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/85 "2011-09-09T08:40:21Z")
Can someone direct me to the specific chapter and verse of the Constitution which Obamacare violates. Or is this just a case of “unconstitutional” = “I don’t like it”? ---
**Author:** ![E72521](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dbc845/32.png) [@E72521](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E72521)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/86 "2011-09-09T09:50:46Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Another reason the auto insurance analogy is incorrect is this: Suppose you get into an accident, and to make matters worse, it’s your fault. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll face heavy penalties and may be civilly liable for any damages to the other party. But no body shop, repair shop, automobile dealer, or any other entity is _required_ to make the injured party whole. By contrast, if you can’t afford health insurance and find yourself critically ill, the ER _is_ obligated to receive and treat you. A hospital admission may ensue, and eventually the hospital will send you bills for five-figure sums that you have no hope of ever being able to repay. And I don’t think the hospital honestly expects you to, but putting a number on it is the beginning of their process of finding some other way of being at least partially reimbursed. > > In essence, we already have universal health care, albeit very unevenly and haphazardly distributed. What we don’t have is a fair and efficient system for seeing that the providers get paid. Thank you. The Emergency Medical Treatment And Active Labor Act of 1986 requires ER’s and ambulances to treat emergencies. The ER cannot simply place a bandaid on lacerated spleen and kick you out; you, the uninsured patient can only be discharged under you own informed consent. This notion that the ER must only stabilize you is pure fantasy, unless you have to be transferred to another facility for services not rendered at the ER. There are some instances where it took several years for hospitals to discharge a nonpayer. So, do we repeal the EMTALA so that we may allow the poor and deadbeat patients a way out of paying for their illness? Is that what we’ve become? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/87 "2011-09-09T10:07:36Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > No one wants socialized medicine, because they may have to pay for someone else. Yet they pay school and road taxes, whether they have a car or a child in school. They pay for libraries, fire services, police services, whether they ever use them, or not. Because it serves the greater good. No one sees this as government overstepping it’s bounds, or a constitutional issue. Weird. 😕 Do you really believe that, starting from scratch in today’s America, we’d have public libraries? Or public schools even of today’s quality? Public fire services and police, maybe; but a recent SDMB thread discussed one homeowner who watched firemen watch his house burn down. They were there in case the fire spread to a neighbor’s house – the neighbor had paid for protection. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/88 "2011-09-09T12:01:45Z")
You’re right, it’s hard to imagine public education or libraries getting passed in today’s environment. That’s kind of sad, all in itself. ---
**Author:** ![Bri2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/48db29/32.png) [@Bri2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bri2k)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/89 "2011-09-09T12:50:18Z")
I find the whole argument against charging a penalty for going uninsured under the HCR bill to be specious as Medicare Part D charges people a Late Enrollment Penalty for not having prescription drug insurance when they first become eligible if they sign up for it at a later date. Law is typically built on precident and Part D has already established it for late enrollment penalties. Could the difference be that Part D was proposed by Bush and HCR was proposed by Obama? Bri2k ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/90 "2011-09-09T13:47:49Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Can someone direct me to the specific chapter and verse of the Constitution which Obamacare violates. Or is this just a case of “unconstitutional” = “I don’t like it”? You’re missing the point. The federal government has limited powers. You need to find the part of the Constitution that allows the federal government to force individuals to buy a product from a private enterprise. It’s more of “It’s constitutional because I like it.” ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/91 "2011-09-09T13:53:42Z")
> [@Bri2k](#): > > I find the whole argument against charging a penalty for going uninsured under the HCR bill to be specious as Medicare Part D charges people a Late Enrollment Penalty for not having prescription drug insurance when they first become eligible if they sign up for it at a later date. Law is typically built on precident and Part D has already established it for late enrollment penalties. You said it yourself, for _late_ enrollment. Not non-enrollment. Basically, what it amounts to is that prescription drug insurance can either be paid for in advance (by signing up when you first become eligible) or as a lump sum (by paying the “Late Enrolment Penalty”). It does not affect anyone who does not opt in to the program in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/92 "2011-09-09T14:36:23Z")
Can the federal government require that every adult buy $1,000 worth of vegetables every year? ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/93 "2011-09-09T15:26:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can the federal government require that every adult buy $1,000 worth of vegetables every year? Could the federal government institute a new tax of $1,000 per American, then give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for the amount of vegetables purchased during the year? Serious question (I’m not an accountant or tax attorney). BUt from my very limited understanding I think they can, as the federal government has the constitutional ability to levy taxes. Also as far as my limited understanding goes, this is how the HCB mandate works. Or am I wrong (I very well could be)? ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/94 "2011-09-09T15:31:59Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > They only people I know who don’t buy health insurance are people who can’t afford it. The minimum wage worker bees who the GOP doesn’t really care about anyway. Or they’re the kind of people who live paycheck-to-paycheck and rather spend their extra few dollars on beer, cigarettes, or at the casino. I don’t buy health insurance (at least in the USA)… since nobody would sell it to me… when you get declined by every insurer licensed in the state (pre-existing condition), you have no choice but to not buy it… although I could easily afford it at normal rates. Once I moved to the former Soviet Union (Rep. of Georgia) it was easy to buy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/95 "2011-09-09T17:28:51Z")
> [@mozchron](#): > > Could the federal government institute a new tax of $1,000 per American, then give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for the amount of vegetables purchased during the year? > > Serious question (I’m not an accountant or tax attorney). BUt from my very limited understanding I think they can, as the federal government has the constitutional ability to levy taxes. > > Also as far as my limited understanding goes, this is how the HCB mandate works. > > Or am I wrong (I very well could be)? I think you’re wrong. > [@Art II](#): > > No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No direct tax of $1000. This is why the first attempt at income tax was declared unconstitutional. Amendment XVI solved that problem, but also does not allow direct tax. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/96 "2011-09-09T18:53:14Z")
**Bricker** : Can you explain what that quote means? I can’t parse it. > [@](#): > > No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 😕 especially about the “unless…” part. That seems to completely nullify the first part. I’m sure it doesn’t, so I must be reading it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/97 "2011-09-09T19:42:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think you’re wrong. > No direct tax of $1000. This is why the first attempt at income tax was declared unconstitutional. Amendment XVI solved that problem, but also does not allow direct tax. Thanks Bricker. I’m with John - could you put that quote into english? How about the Gov not taxing $1,000, but still giving a $1,000 credit for veggies? Or in the context of the HCB, not fining or taxing anyone for not having health care, but giving a write off or credit for the insurance premiums? Coupled with not allowing companies to turn down, would this be acceptable? And I know that in the above scenario, all of us are in essence paying for the premiums in the long term - some may find that objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/98 "2011-09-09T21:05:12Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > States have different powers than the Federal Government, as outlined in their respective Constitutions. Not if the argument against is a civil liberties argument. I don’t see an error of my younger ways - I made a financial risk calculation. If a young person today wishes to engage in the same decision making process, I would understand their thought process. [/QUOTE] Of course it was economically advantageous for you to not buy insurance when you were young. If this were not true, we wouldn’t have a problem. The problem is that those people doing this are now increasing your insurance premiums now you are old. If we create a system where everyone whose expected annual return is negative gets to stay out, then we either raise rates so high that everyone is excluded, or we turn to the taxpayers to subsidize the system. The former is the reason Blue Cross gave for proposing giant increases in California. They raised rates on individual policies so high that everyone not in desperate need of insurance (read, high medical bills) left, which decreased the premium base by a lot more than the decrease in paid benefits. But why coerce younger people? It is fine to charge smokers more, after all. The reason is that younger people will grow into older people (unless they die) and so each younger person benefiting from the system today by not participating will lose tomorrow. When immediate self interest works against societal interest is when we have to regulate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/99 "2011-09-09T21:12:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not if the argument against is a civil liberties argument. It’s an argument of limited federal powers. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2011, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616/100 "2011-09-09T21:13:22Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I worked within the system that was presented to me. Health insurance for an individual was too expensive based on my income at the time. I could afford the occasional physician visit and generic drugs. Carrying insurance for an extremely remote chance of a catastrophic incident did not make financial sense. > > Now, if you don’t want people to make that decision, then you change the system. Just do not be surprised when people act in a rational fashion based on their own self interests. My comment applied to those who could afford insurance but who chose not to have it because they expected to use it less than they paid for it - and quite correctly. There are ways of calculating the expected benefits of insurance. People who really can’t afford insurance - young or old - need subsidies. BTW, any group policy I’ve ever been in has required all members to purchase health insurance unless you can prove that you are covered by another policy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-not-buying-health-insurance-and-why-is-the-right-so-aggressively-defending-them/595616.md?page=6)