Socialized Healthcare

[Sheherezade]

I've read that 10% of auto owners in states that require (mandate) auto insurance do not carry it. This statistic has been used to demonstrate that even with mandates and requirements, many will not get health insurance. They will need to be treated anyway - unless we change our medical ethics.

How did this thread get recently revived?

[ladymoreta]

How did this thread get recently revived?

McPants was the troublemaker this time! Not that any of us have anything to do with continuing it...

Good point about people just not getting coverage, even if it's required. I think Maryland had some kind of penalty they had to pay if they came in for care without coverage. But then, they could just not pay that, too. Like you said, they'll still get treatment, regardless...

[Rapunzel]

I'm sure the good people of the NRA have made or sponsored a few studies that manage to somehow come to the conclusion that having items in the household designed to cause harm do not in fact increase the risk of harm being caused to members of said household, however I don't think those studies will necessarily be the ones on which insurance companies will base their decision regarding who deserves higher premiums. It'll be up to them to determine whose lifestyle leaves them more at risk after all, not you or me.

Nope - not stats from the NRA. They're from the National Safety Council. Here's the documentation on gun fatalities: http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

And, with that I will drop the issue because it is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Rapunzel]

I've read that 10% of auto owners in states that require (mandate) auto insurance do not carry it. This statistic has been used to demonstrate that even with mandates and requirements, many will not get health insurance. They will need to be treated anyway - unless we change our medical ethics.

How did this thread get recently revived?

How many auto owners would have insurance if it wasn't mandated? (Does anyone know if that has been studied?). If mandating it does dramatically affect the number of those insured then I would think it would help the situation when we remove pre-existing condition clauses.

I know that there are kinks in MA's mandated system. But, the way the state ensures compliance with the mandated health insurance is by tying it to the state income taxes. You have to show proof that you are insured at tax time (with the tax form) or else you get fined. What I'd be interested in knowing are the compliance numbers since MA instituted this policy.

If we did it this way we'd have to make it a national mandate with the proof of health insurance being required at federal income tax time (since some states - such as Texas and New Hampshire) do not have state income taxes.

[McPants]

Nope - not stats from the NRA. They're from the National Safety Council. Here's the documentation on gun fatalities: http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

And, with that I will drop the issue because it is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Your link provides absolutely no information on health risks related to gun-ownership whatsoever. I find stats on the likelihood for an American citizen to die from firearms discharge, assault by firearm and intentional self-harm by firearm, however the point I argued was that firearm-ownership could lead to increased health risks not that Americans as a people endure significant health risks because of firearms.

But you're right, this is irrelevant; back to socialized healthcare.